Talk:Homosexuality and Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Islam

This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homosexuality and Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Who is the one who speaks for "the vast majority" of Muslims?

Someone wrote: "The Al-Fatiha Foundation's positions are rejected by the overwhelming majority or Muslims." This is highly unlikely as the overwhelming majority of Muslims have probably never even heard of the Al-Fatiha Foundation and/or its positions. It is also unproven, since nobody has gone out and surveyed the vast majority of Muslims. From a wikipedia point of view, the unfounded statement that the vast majority of Muslims reject or approve of the positions of an organisation seems to violate the principle of writing in the Neutral Point of View. -- Silver Maple

I disagree, Silver. The phrase is about "Al-Fatiha Foundation's positions, that is, the ideology and arguments that promove approval and acceptance of homosexuality in a non-orthodox interpretation about Al-Quran. Since we know that islamic orthodox views condemn homosexuality (and they are majority - because of this, they're orthodox), the phrase has sense. In traditional Islamic doctrines - as well as in christian ones -, homosexuality is a huge sin, and overwhelming majority of Muslims agree with it. This position is naturally against what Al-Fatiha teaches, it doesn't matter if the majority of Muslims have heard about the organization or not. Joaomarinho 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

This article is absolutely one-sided and POV. --Amys 11:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compare John Boswell. ISBN 0226067114. pp 195-197:

"The Arabic language contains a huge vocabulary of gay erotic terminology, with dozens of words just to describe types of male prostitutes. Erotic address by one male to another is the standard convention of Arabic love poetry; even poems really written to or for women frequently use male pronouns and metaphors of male beauty: it is not uncommon to find poetry addressed to a female in which the object of the poet's affection is praised for 'a dark mustache over pearly white teeth' or the 'first downy beard over damask skin'. Poems about the physical allure of a young man's first beard constitute an entire genre of Arabic poetry. That such literary and social phenomena do not simply reflect social strictures against public exposure and admiration of women is demonstrated by the practice in many areas of the Muslim world (especially Spain) of dressing pretty girls to look like pretty boys or cutting their hair short and clothing them in male attire: the women who participated in this unusual form of transvestism were obviously available to be appreciated as females.

In early medieval Spain this tendency was if anything exaggerated. Every variety of homosexual relationship was common, from prostitution to idealized love. Erotic verse about ostensibly homosexual relationships constitutes the bulk of published Hispano-Arabic poetry. Such verses were written by every sort of person of every rank. Kings wrote love poems to or about their male subjects and received erotic poetry in return. Poets wrote love verses to each other or to those of humbler station. The common people as well repeated, if they did not compose, songs celebrating gay love and sexuality. When al-Mutamid, eleventh-century king of Seville, wrote of his page that 'I made him my slave, but the coyness of his glance had made me his prisoner, so that we are both at once slave and master to each other,' he was expressing a feeling with which his subjects could not only empathize but about which they themselves probably composed or recited similar verses.

Al-Mutamid also fell in love with the poet Ibn Ammar, from whom he could not bear to be parted, 'even for an hour, day or night,' and whom he made one of the most powerful men in Spain. Earlier in the century the kingdom of Valencia had been ruled by a pair of former slaves who had fallen in love and risen together through the ranks of the civil service until they were in a position to rule by themselves. Their joint rule was characterized by admiring Muslim historians as a relationship of complete trust and mutual devotion, without any trace of competion or jealousy, and their love for each other was celebrated in verse by poets attracted to their court from all over Spain.

Hispano-Muslim society combined the freewheeling sexuality of Rome with the Greek tendency to passionate idealiziation of emotional relationships. Its most intense erotic literature might celebrate relationships which were either sublimated or sexual, but in either case they were as apt to involve same-sex relations as heterosexual ones, if not more so.

It would be a mistake to imagine this cultural predilection for homosexual eroticism as the result of secularization or religious decline: Spanish Islam was noted for its rigidity in legalistic and moral matters, produced outstanding jurists and theologians, and was generally ruled by Muslims considered fanatics in the rest of the Islamic world. Homosexual love imagery was a standard currency of Islam mystical writings both in and out of Spain. Many of the authors of gay erotic poetry on the Iberian peninsula were teachers of the Qur'an, religious leaders, or judges; almost all wrote conventional religious verse as well as love poetry. Ibn al-Farra', a teacher of the Qur'an in Almería, addressed amorous verse to his pupils in class and wrote a poem about taking a reluctant lover to court, where the qadi ruled that the youth must give in to the teacher's advances:

Then [the judge] indicated to the flowers that they were to be taken,
And to the mouth that it should be tasted.
And when my beloved saw him on my side,
And there was no longer any controversy between us,
He abandoned his resistance, and I enfolded him
As if I were a lam and my lover an alif. [107]
I continued reproaching him for his unkindness,
And he said, 'May God forgive a past mistake!'"

[107] An image of graphic sexual import: the Arabic letters lam and alif are written together in a way that is here taken to suggest the insertion of one into the other.

This article deals with Islamic views - that is, the consensus of religious opinion on the matter - not with the views of predominantly Muslim cultures (which, by the way, are considerably exaggerated above; I suspect the author of having been largely misled by the common practice in Arabic poetry of addressing the beloved in the masculine form of the verb, even when the beloved is specifically named as a woman, because the feminine form is longer and makes it harder to stick to the meter.) If a teacher of the Quran in Almeria addressed gay love poetry to his students, that is no more relevant to this article than a Catholic priest doing the same thing would be to Christian views of homosexuality, or than the widespread and practically open practice of abbés in nineteenth-century France of taking mistresses. - Mustafaa 18:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, but an article about "Islamic views of homosexuality" should at least explain why homosexuality has hardly ever been punished in the Islamic word before the era of Islamofascism, and why it could thrive culturally to such an extent. It should mention that the rule of the four witnesses who must testify the insertion of the penis into the anus makes a conviction virtually impossible. And it should also mention that the mass murder of the Iranic Mullah regime against allegedly gay people has surely not been in accordance with the rule of the four witnesses, but has served the regime solely in its purpose to liquidate political opponents. Besides, it should tell us that "homosexuality" is a modern category (denoting a type of person), whereas the Shari'a only deals with acts of penetration. And there is not one word in the article that says that Allah commanded to leave the two men alone if they repent (apart from the fact that there is not even a specific punishment prescribed by the Qur'an). [Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.] --Amys 22:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The four witnesses rule is mentioned in the article - although, as I understand it, it applies only in the Shafii madhhab - but would probably be worth going into more detail on. The fact that, as you note, ""homosexuality" is a modern category" is a very important one, with which I would totally agree - and add that it's a specifically Western one, and is still foreign to most Muslim cultures; I would certainly agree that that should be highlighted in the article. However, "hardly ever been punished" is a point that would need further documentation. I know very little about Iran's attitude to the issue. - Mustafaa 03:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have read quite a number of (Western) articles and books about the topic. But I have never read that the rule of the four witnesses, which is mentioned everywhere, only applied to certain schools. It's the first time I hear that. As for the number of convictions, the only cases that have been reported in premodern times all refer to the 7th century (under the rule of Abu Bakr, 632-34, and Ali ibn Abi Talib, 656-61). There seem to be no other cases that are mentioned in historical sources. Therefore, most people were hardly ever aware that it is a serious crime. Or how would you explain the following poem?
"As the boy looked at it, my thing moved and he whispered: 'It is splendid! Do let me try its love making.' I answered 'Such an act is reprehended, in fact many people call it unlawful.' He said: 'Oh them; oh them! With me all things are lawful.' And I was to polite to disobey." (quoted from: Maarten Schild: Islam, in: The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality).
I don't believe it! This is a poem. It is clearly a phatasy by a libertine, who wants it that way. -- It's linke studying sexualy behaviour in Japan by quoting from yaoi
Another case is reported by Arno Schmitt in: Sexuality & Eroticism Among Males in Muslim Societies (I personally consider this to be a racist book):
(QUOTE) Let me relate a story which happened around 1970 in a town on the Somali coast: "Ahmed is a young man who went to Saudi Arabia, where he gathered some basic Islamic knowledge. When he returned home, he helped his father in teaching the Qur'an to the young children. One day a [descendant of Muhammad] came to the mosque and tried to have sexual relations with one of the boys inside the mosque. The boy escaped and told his teacher, [who] felt bad for two reasons. First: homosexuality is against Islam as he understood it. Second: ... the mosque is the 'house of God' and, for that reason, the purest place. He went to the [descendant of Muhammad] and told him to get out of the mosque, and not to come back again. The people did not agree with [Ahmed's] behavior, and they stopped sending their children to his lessons. ... The [descendant of Muhammad] declared that Ahmed, being trained in Saudi Arabia ... had lost faith and had to be expelled from that mosque. [Ahmed had to leave town] for Mombasa to work as a porter in the market." (Abdhulhamid az-Zain: The Sacred Meadows, North Western Uni. Press, 1974, p. 171) (END QUOTE)
So I think, everything is much more complicated than the article suggests. --Amys 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think, another point is the attitude of the Iranic regime and the question of how modern its concept of "homosexuality" is. There is a very, very interesting article published in German by a left-wing exil-Iranian (is this correct English? ;-). Perhaps I will translate some passages from it later on. But there are also some shrewd observations by Maarten Shild concerning this point:
"In Iran 'homosexuality' has become a negative label, as it has in other Islamic countries, but fortunately with less extreme consequences. The label 'homosexuality' refers to behavior that clashes with the God-given order of society and with the social role pattern, it is behavior that violates public decency, and is moreover seen as a typical example of western decadence. [...] Ayatollah Khomeini (who died in 1989) alluded to this idea, asserting that 'homosexuals' had to be exterminated because they were parasites and corruptors of the nation by spreading the 'stain of wickedness.' 'Homosexuality' not only is seen as evil in itself, but provides a convenient label for stigmatizing bad people in general. This broad-gauge definition underpinned what happend in Iran, where 'homosexuality' was often deployed as a generic label to be applied at will to persons adjudged criminals, whether rightly or wrongly. It did not matter much what they did, it was enough to know that they were antisocial and therefore evil. In this way, for example, political opponents could be eliminated without any legal justification."
So the executions in Iran have to do with the construction of homosexuality as an abstract essence. Everything evil is viewed as an emanation (or manifestation) of this essence. This has nothing to do with the Qur'an, or the Shari'a. It's a crazy import of a western idea that is at the same time being projected on the west to condemn it as "evil" and "decadent". --Amys 22:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following three paragraphs from this website: http://glbtjews.org./newsletter/200306/June20.htm

In fact, "recovered" is what Palestinian gays must be if they are to survive in "Palestine." As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote last August in The New Republic, Islamic law prescribes five separate forms of death for homosexuals. To these, the Palestinian Authority adds several of its own. In the West Bank city of Tulkarm, Halevi reports, a young Palestinian homosexual he calls Tayseer "was forced to stand in sewage up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see... During one interrogation, police stripped him and forced him to sit on a Coke bottle. Throughout the entire ordeal he was taunted by interrogators, jailers, and fellow prisoners for being a homosexual."

Tayseer's story is one of hundreds. Halevi also tells the story of one Palestinian homosexual who was put in a pit in Nablus and starved to death over Ramadan; of another whose PA interrogators "cut him with glass and poured toilet cleaner into his wounds"; of a third who lives in fear of his life from his brothers. "It's now impossible to be an open gay in the PA," says Shaul Ganon of Aguda-Association of Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender in Israel.

All this is of a piece with the broader treatment of homosexuals throughout the Muslim world. The Taliban used to put homosexuals to death by collapsing a wall on them. In Malaysia, the maximum penalty for sodomy is 20 years in prison and "mandatory whipping." In Egypt, an increasingly severe crackdown on homosexuals is now entering its third year. In April, Brazil put forward a gay-rights resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission; Muslim countries successfully filibustered it.

[edit] Muslim condemnation of executions

"The vast majority of non-Muslims, led by Amnesty International, have condemned this practice, and some Muslims have joined in such condemnation. Muslims who condemn the executions might base such condemnation on their perception that it reflects poorly on Muslim society's current levels of tolerance for people who do not fit into accepted norms, while others might see it as an ineffective deterrent"

Are there no Muslims who actually find homosexuality to be acceptable (in a manner similar to pro-choice Catholics or other such)?

147.9.159.142 02:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuality is strongly disapproved of by pretty much every religion, and certainly all abrahamic religions. On the other hand, some practicianers are clearly more liberal than others. Clearly an affluent, cosmopolitan living in a large city is likely to be more tolerant generally, than a poor student in an afgani madrassa. There is a range. I heard a lady on NPR saying she was a lesbian, and a muslim of sorts. She even said some fellow muslim students in canada were at least somewhat supportive of reform and liberalization, but she also said she was only barely a muslim, and likely (in my guess) feared being an apostate. I've also heard about muslim men kissing each others cheeks, and holding hands in public, but this is because it isn't seen as ho,mosexual due to cultural differences. As with christianity (or pretty much any religion) those who are more liberal (Episcopalians for example) are more accepting of those who violate religious laws, whereas the more conservative follow the traditional interpretations. Sam Spade 02:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i'm a muslim who used to live in a muslim country and i've never seen men holding hands and i've never heard of men holding hands either.

When I was in Turkey I found the men to be physically affectionate and demonstrative in ways you just do not see in the West. Haiduc 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Pakistan for a while, where M-M hand holding is common. Here in the UAE men kissing cheeks in a non-sexual context is common (being kissed by a sweaty bestubbled Iraqi fencer after a bout was a surprize, but certainly not a "pass". However, cheek kissing is also common in France and Latin parts of Europe (rugby coaches were doing it at Stade de France yesterday). There is a tendancy to view male physical content from an Anglo-Saxon (or add celtic in there if you want) point of view, which seems to be about the least demonstrative in this respect than any other I've come across in my travels. Epeeist smudge 11:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] traditionalist homosexuals

The bizarre stuff removed by Sam Spade has been lying in this article for about 8 months: can someone do a fact-check of this article? -- The Anome 00:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, why do you continue deleting what you regard as "bizarre speculations"? I can assure you they would not strike any traditionalist Muslim as at all bizarre. - Mustafaa 20:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Because it is weird, and would seem to be original research. Sam Spade 20:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not only is it a perfectly plausible religious argument, it makes sociological sense as well. In virtually all traditional Muslim urban societies, the segregation of the sexes is not just a minor point of custom, but a primary tool for keeping the social order "pure" by removing any danger of flirtation. The lengths to which people will and do go to stop intermingling of people with any potential for sexual interest in each other may indeed be "weird", certainly from a Western perspective, but is an undeniable fact of the way these societies work - and its converse is that pious denizens of such societies feel that any expansion in the domain of potential sexual interest would be a serious (and very problematic) contraction of the public domain. Ask any Saudi. A quick Google search suggests that this argument is not original either: [1]. Mustafaa 20:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
More evidence that this view is actually pretty natural from a traditional Islamic perspective: "Some scholars, like Al-`Izz Ibn `Abd As-Salaam, say that a lesbian is not permitted to look at a Muslim woman, and that a Muslim woman is not permitted to uncover (take off her Hijaab) in front of a lesbian, because she is an evildoer who cannot be trusted not to describe her attitude towards others."[2] - Mustafaa 06:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So now the neutrality is disputed. Why exactly? Saying that the aforementioned sentence is "weird" is not a reason: people can and do believe plenty weirder things than that. - Mustafaa 06:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"No other Muslim nations have the death penalty for it, and of those that do or did, only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan have been reported to have carried it out within the past decade.[1] (http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/Summary%20information/death_penalty_for_homosexual_act.htm) Some, such as Turkey, have no laws forbidding it."

How are we defining "Muslim nation" here? Note that although the majority of the Turkish population is Muslim, the Turkish government claims to secular. — Ливай | ☺ 22:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in the Sharia

I put a sect NPOV on this because it does what so many articles do (actually not quite as badly) in making "the Sharia" a monolithic entity that Muslims must follow instead of portraying it as it is... the concept of God's law, which different interpretations of exist. I also think that some progressive (yes, I know they are marginal) schools (and not as formalized as the four main Sunni madhhabs) that allow for homosexuality. The gay Muslim groups in Britain are a good example. They should be mentioned because this notion in Islam is no longer that everyone believes it is wrong, just like in Christianity and Judaism the opinions on the issue have changed. gren 29 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

It already covers three of the four Sunni madhhabs, and one Shii; how much less monolithic can it get? - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
My first problem was the implications of unanimity that the word consensus can imply. I also think that only putting traditional schools within a Sharia heading has the wrong implications. Sharia is God's law and the liberals are attempting to interpret it just like the traditional fiqah did and I don't think we should exactly reflect on their legitimacy. I also think that lacking good statistics there shouldn't be a general feeling in the article (which maybe I am wrong in how I read it) that seems to imply how Muslims think about this issue. And I do think that's monolithic still. Four traditional Sunni (which most Muslims claim that they all respected each other's schools) and one Shia is not diverse, to me it seems like the differences between Jesuits, Dominicans, and Salesians. gren 5 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
Fair enough; notable non-madhhab positions, if any, should certainly be mentioned. But the vast majority of Muslims do agree that homosexuality is wrong, and the article should reflect that; the main difference is about what punishment, if any, is appropriate, not about whether it's OK or not. - Mustafaa 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
Agreed, most Islamic views do believe it is bad... I just think there is something wrong with traditional views being labelled as Sharia while liberal is put outside of that. That has clear implications about legitimacy of view. Each view is trying to follow sharia in the sense of God's law, however only one (and partially because traditional views are more likely to call their view sharia) is getting labelled as such. gren 17:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. What survey establishes that homosexuality (as distinct from homosexual acts) is considered wrong (or bad) by the vast majority of Muslims? Just what proportion constitutes a "vast majority" anyway?
Would it be better if the section title was changed to "Homosexuality in Sharia Law"? That, combined with the listings of different treatments under different interpretations, should serve to weaken the monolithic viewpoint further.--Myk 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sharia while not monolithic, is very well represented here. The fact is the Gay muslim groups and what have you comprise an exceedingly tiny minority. It's not worth mentioning them unless they gain momentum. Trust me as a muslim when I say that isn't happening tommorrow. We can't mention every single view there is for every single issue. If we start here, other articles would explode with irrelevent info. The fact is, the difference between a cult and a religion is a coupla thousand followers, like it or not. Every community has its black sheep minority and I'm sure there are some buddhists who believe in killing (something), why would we mention them though unless they typified a larger movement.

[edit] Errr

This line does not fit with the rest of the content: "The result is a religion that allows love between those of the same gender as long as they do not have sexual intercourse" - It is perplexing, also, " It does not mean the act of masturbation....." - Now, I've always understood that "Slef-love" this was banned by at least two of the maddhabs of Sunni Islam so under whose interpretation of the shariat have we arrived at a situation where it is allowed if someone else does it? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic societies

In the first line of the article: "In traditional Islamic societies it is considered normal for a man to be drawn to beautiful male youths", has there been anny study to show that traditional islamic societies consider it normal? I believe they don't consider it normal. 212.38.143.185 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who says "attraction" is forbidden in the Sharia?

I have removed the following paragraph,

While homosexuality as an attraction is against the Sharia (which governs the physical actions, and also the inner thoughts and feelings), it is only the physical action of same-sex intercourse that is punishable under the Sharia. Thus, homosexual desire and love are accommodated, but same-sex intercourse is prohibited, as Islam teaches that such intercourse is a violation of the natural boundaries set by Allah.

because the claim that it is "attraction" that is forbidden contradicts much of what id written on this topic. It is also somewhat redundant. If anyone can provide references then we can determine whether and how to restore this. Haiduc 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somalia

It says: "Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in seven Islamic nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia..." Isn't Somalia an anarchy? How can it have sodomy laws if there is no government to enforce them?

It is an anarchical anarchy, meaning it is not consistent in its anarchy and still has a code of laws which no one follows and no one enforces. Haiduc 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
A "law" that is neither followed nor enforced is not a law. 68.239.0.68 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Proof Whatsoever

No where in Islam does it say that Homosexuality with minors is praiseworthy. That is very wrong. What past rulers did does not justify its praiseworthiness. This claim that it's praiseworthy is quite irroneous. Synkronyzer

Please look at the great quantity of literary and philosophical and religious wrtitings before making such claims. Some examples:
  • The Hanbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzi: "He who claims that he experiences no desire when looking at beautiful boys or youths is a liar, and if we could believe him he would be an animal, and not a human being." (James T. Monroe, in Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature, p. 117)
  • Persian philosopher Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi: "We do not find anyone of those who have a refined heart and a delicate character . . . to be void of this love at one time or another in their life, but we find all coarse souls, harsh hearts and dry characters . . . devoid of this type of love, most of them restricting themselves to the love of men for women and the love of women for men with the aim of mating and cohabitation, as is in the nature of all animals [...] (El-Rouayheb, 2005, p.58)"
  • The Sufi Rabah al-Qaysi, on the ability to appreciate the beauty of boys: "This is a mercy that God Most High has put into the hearts of his slaves." (Abu 'Abdur-Rahman as-Sulami, pp. 78-79)
I do not know where you made up the bit about "Homosexuality with minors" - the text simply says "all other same-sex behaviors between males as minor sins or even praiseworthy." Please stop reverting, it will not work. Haiduc 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your quote by Ibn Jawzi is out of context. He is therefore stating in that quote in the Arabic text that it's a danger and we should stay away from young men becuase Satan can tempt one to do sick acts. As for the other quotes such as Shirazi and Sufi Rabah are not notable examples of scholars that represent Islam. Islam is not what people say. If you look into the Koran and Sunnah, no where does it sanction paedophilia. So i must say that these quotes are not accepted because they don't represent Islam in anyway.Synkronyzer 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move the page

The page says "Homosexuality and Islam" - This should then be solely about the religious Fatwas about the subject. I suggest moving it to Homosexuality in Muslim Society to allow its broader scope. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Rulings

As a result of this debate, a section of the article Islamic Rulings was supposed to be merged here. However, it seems to me that the content of that article is already here; it can be recovered from the history if needed [3]. - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] domination/submission?

'Anal intercourse cannot be separated from role-playing and sentiments of domination and submission.'

What is this?? From an Islamic point of view, maybe. But from the point of view of a practicing homosexual (me), this is just inexcusable. Clear POV conflict. Am I wrong? I disputed the neutrality of this statement rather than just changing it because I know next to nothing about Islam and its standpoint on the psychology of anal sex. What do you think?

That's not the only thing about anal intercourse that bothers me about this page. al-Sistani, who certainly has the credibilty to comment on this issue, states that anal sex, while undesirable, is not haram, on the Q&A section of his official website. I don't think it's fair to call it a "major sin", and not mention his view. This is not to say that I think Islam generally, and most Muslims from traditionally Muslim nations in particular, shouldn't be a lot more tolerant than they are now. Edit: Actually, on a second reading, the statement I referred to is probably meant to refer to anal sex between two men, especially given the article in which the statement appears. I think that al-Sistani was probably taking it as implicit that anal sex with unspecified partners was between a man and a woman.

The sentence "In particular Islam condemns anal intercourse—whether with males or females—as a major sin" ought to be changed, because this is not a universal view. Sistani's fatwa is one example (from a Shi'a rather than a Sunni perspective). The Qur'anic basis for condemning anal sex is verse 223, al-Baqara, which says: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will ...". By extrapolation, the word "tilth" (arable land; "harth" in Arabic) is interpreted by some scholars as meaning that "only vaginal sex is permissible in Islam, because it is from this place that children are produced. The semen lodged in the womb from which offspring comes is likened to the seeds that are planted in the ground, bringing vegetation" (quote from IslamOnline). This is very similar to the view held by many Roman Catholics that the only purpose of sex is for procreation and non-procreative sexual acts should be avoided. However, there is a good deal of evidence that on the whole Islamic scholars do not regard sex as purely a matter of procreation. While some Muslims regard anal sex as totally forbidden, others (in the context of male-female relations) say it is permissible with the wife's agreement, and some couples practise it as a means of contraception. (Brian Whitaker 07:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

This needs to be integrated into the article, but if the main issue is "harth" then why all the fuss over "liwat," especially "greater liwat" with a male? Haiduc 12:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Citation

Despite the request for citation being present in respect of that alleged hadith for some time, none has been made. When it can be verified, re-add it.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty

As there is already a link to the appropriate article, the following should be removed from the intro: The traditional tolerance, literary and religious, for chaste pederastic love affairs which according to Khaled El-Rouayheb had been prevalent since the 800's began to be eroded in the mid-1800's by the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new Westernized elite. (El-Rouayheb, 2005, p.156) SouthernComfort 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be eliminated? Exploding Boy 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is already a link at the very top of the article to so-called "age-structured" relationships, i.e. pederasty. This article allegedly focuses on homosexuality, not the specific topic of pederasty. SouthernComfort 20:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming that paederasty, in the context of this article, refers to same-sex relationships, I can't see any problem with this particular passage being in the article. Exploding Boy 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs reforming

"men are encouraged to developed close friendships with other men, and women are encouraged to develop close friendships with other women, thus homosexual love is encouraged (while lust is not)"

does this conclude that close friendship = homosexual love ? what about brotherly love ? 86.16.116.224 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatawa on homosexuality

I've blanked this section and suggest transwikiing ti to Wikisource, which is specifically designed as a repository of source documents. Pecher Talk 09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Richardson

This I had to take away: But according to Justin Richardson, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, such thinking is backward - it is precisely the extreme restrictions on sexual relations with women that lead to greater prevalence of the behavior. "In some Muslim societies where the prohibition against premarital heterosexual intercourse is extremely high—higher than that against sex between men—you will find men having sex with other males not because they find them most attractive of all but because they find them most attractive of the limited options available to them." [4]

First, it is not clear, what thinking is such. Second, what qualifies Richardson to write about the subject? Third, the source does not support anything of what was said in the paragraph. Fourth, nothing essential is said here.

[edit] 13th warrior

Read this book about middle east and azerbaijan you will see how turks were acting against homosexuality. It was a very serious crime on humanity so punisment is a very quick and bloody death by "Töre". Nowadays some homosexualist (who may or not be homosexuals) are trying to find roots for their ideas or acts but islamic world is a wrong place because islam punished this act worse than nazism. though they shall search this in ancient greece and rome also in pre-islamic arab traditions homosexuality is common. And Köçek(the male dancer) has nothing common with gays they were (and are) males who were entertaining crowds. If all male dancers are gay then tell me about their european counterparts today, are they gay also...

[edit] Re:Somalia

This is another mistaken thing among western people (who never have been free always a central government and Papacy ruled over them) In islam laws come from god and "BELIVERS" must obey and run these rules. Somalia may be in anarchy but there are mosques working in which trials can be made and sinners can be punished no need for a central government.

[edit] Oilman's Experiences

I've worked in the int'l oil industry for 30 years, so I've been to many Muslim nations, and many of them repeatedly.

On the 'holding hands' issue: In Pakistan, it is very much the norm, and if you are with a Pakistani man and you don't, he might become offended, just as many Westerners would be offended by not shaking hands. In the UAE and in Tunisia, professional people generally did not, but on the streets, men of lesser means did so often enough that it was not considered remarkable. There appears to be zero sexual content in the action. SO... why is it here at all? It has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

On the Justin Richardson topic: Gender-segregated societies almost always act in the way he describes, whether East or West. There is lust for a particular sex and there is just a plain old lust for sex, and the second type has no outlet other than what is available. Pure common sense. It happens in the West, too, and we call it prison sex. I have two friends who were in prison earlier in their lives, and they both said, "What you wanted there and what you want outside don't have anything to do with each other." BUT. That's not what the article is supposed to be about.

On the misuse of 'homosexuality': There is nothing strange at all about keeping the orientation of homosexuality unproscribed and the act of penetration heavily proscribed. It just means that people understood the absurdity of prosecuting thoughtcrime long before Orwell brought up the topic. So did the Baptists: "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

On the Sharia issue: The Sharia is important, and second only to the quotations from the Qu'ran (more on that later). That's because the Sharia is the forum by which we can know how Islam as a religion reacts to the issue, and that's the subject of the article. The Sharia is not there to enforce 'community standards' ot 'traditional prejudices.' That's not to say that it succeeds, but since it operates like common law, bad opinions create inertia in official opinions. So it is entirely relevant, and all the stuff about Spanish love-poetry, however enlightening and true, simply has very little to do with the article's subject. (So move it and call it 'Historical homoerotic writings within Islam' or somesuch)

It's a tough judgement call, but as pointed out by myk, the Sharia is not monolithic. The article made that clear, but then only quoted opinions by those parts that followed the same side side. Definitely not NPOV. Yes, the opposing ones were referred to (but not quoted in the same significant way), almost as if in passing. I believe the accused gets to choose which of the four main bodies in Sunni Islam he will be judged under, so what is requird is the range of modern opinions among those four. In Shi'a, only one body is binding, so take a representative decision.

There are two more Shi'a bodies, four more Sunni bodies, and three Westernized bodies. They are all limited in who accepts their judgments, but they all have followers. Pick two representative opinions on the negative end and two on the positive end. Now you have NPOV. "Just the facts, mam." You don't have to demonize Hitler for people to figure out he's a bad man... just state the facts in a neutral manner, and it will scream from the page. Trust wiki-users.

The public reaction issue: After the Qu'ran and the Sharia, it might be relevant to talk about current public opinion, but only if you can document that. I will tell you that it's a topic Islamic men seem very unconfortable about discussing (they're also about the same level of uncomfortable talking about adultery, however). The political actions in Saudi Arabia and places like that, however, cloud the issue, unless you can show that the religious authorities pushed for the changes in civil law.

In the cases of Iran and the Taliban, however, the civil and religious authorities are the same, and so those might be relevant as long as you keep clear those are local, and not general issues in Islam. It will be a tricky walk down the POV highway, so perhaps it should have its own article, and merely a link here. Most Muslims I've ever talked to felt that both governments were reprehensible, and the Islamist position is not as well-supported by workaday Muslims as the Western Press and Western politicians would lead you to believe.

An aside: I don't personally care if you have a problem with Anglo-Saxons, but don't blame the Celts. They were the conquered slaves. Julius Caesar said he respected the bravery of Celts above all the other tribes, and as evidense he described visiting a warrior's house and discovered the man had a wife and a teen-age boy lover, and they all slept in the same bed. I agree, that's brave!

And, finally, the Qu'ran quotes: Four translation-quotes of the same passage? My initial reaction was "Who edited this?" But on second thought, if the same words in Arabic can lead to such incredibly different renderings in English, then I can only wonder about any attempt to extract meaning from the book, because it means that the original had to have been very vague! But also, more context may be needed. The usual gay 'defense' on the Sodom and Gomorrah story is that the offenders were rapists who vioated the norms of hospitality. Is that true in the Qu'ran? I tried to look it up, but a friend has my copy.Lamabillybob 09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Article is POV and wrong, please read this from Sistani. --Striver 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wahhabi Lie about Imam Abu Hanifa

Saying that Hanafi Fiqah allows homosexuality, is a lie found in Wahhabi books criticising Imam Abu Hanifa. I challenge Wahhabies to quote Imam Abu Hanifa directly. Hassanfarooqi 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queer Jihad??? NO WAY

Whichever editor took the liberty to add the rambling, unarticulate section on "queer jihad", needs to know one thing: IT DOESN'T EXIST. This entire article can be one sentence long "Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam", period. With there actually being intellectual discussion about it, makes this a partially viable article. But the queer jihad article is, or rather was, for lack of a better term, ignorant. I will watch this carefully, and will make any and all edits neccessary to make sure no one thinks there is such a ridiculous thing as a queer jihad. Chairman Sharif 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some things that this article needs (rather than your single sentence). What are the rulings on homosexual-related issues over time? How was sexual orientation conceptualized in the Muslim world over time? I think it's safe to say that now most Muslim jurists would outlaw homosexuality... but how did this development come is related to how Muslims began to conceptualize sexual orientation... especially in contradistinction to Persian or Ottoman pederasty ... which, isn't plainly homosexuality either, but is related and relevant, even thought it's more of an elite thing. There are tons of issues to discuss. gren グレン 07:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved the neutrality warning to top of section

Its just doesnt feel right to me that warning comes after reading the section. Warnings should come first right?. Warning at the bottom is like giving warning to a person who already cut their hand with a dangerous machinery. 202.185.20.111 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Izhar

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomosexuality_and_Islam_a05d.html"