One of the bizarre hypocrisies of modern Britain is that criticising people who claim religious sanction for homophobia can be labeled bigotry but, at all other times, homophobia is the unacceptable bigotry.
I have always attempted to square this circle by drawing a line between those who say we are all sinners and homosexuality is a sin like any other judged by their god on judgment day (generally speaking, the Anglican answer) and those who say that it is a sin worse than all others (Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, for example) and homosexuals deserve punishment in this world.
There is another way – and it is significantly more intellectually satisfying: to argue that religions can accept homosexuality. Dr Amanullah De Sondy does so today in the Sunday Times.
One of Scotland’s leading Muslim academics is challenging his religion’s orthodox opinion on homosexuality by suggesting Islam is compatible with a gay lifestyle.
Dr Amanullah De Sondy says there is evidence in Islamic history to support his claim but said conservative Muslims refuse to acknowledge it as they are “deeply homophobic”.
Rather than spend our time working out exactly what kinds of homophobia can be tolerated in modern British society, we should join De Sondy in making the positive case for accepting homosexuality.
The 29-year-old said his opponents often cite the story, which appears in both the Koran and the Bible, of God sending angels to destroy the sinful inhabitants of the valley of Sodom.
“It is often said to illustrate God’s disapproval of homosexuality. But on closer inspection it is about his disapproval of the rape of young boys. There is a big difference,” he said.
Intolerance is not necessarily part of Muslim tradition, De Sondy argues, pointing to examples of people living openly in same-sex relationships.
“In the 16th-century Punjab, there lived a Sufi [uslim mystic] saint and poet called Shah Hussain. He fell in love with a Hindu boy. They lived together and are buried in the same tomb. But some people want to rewrite history, saying the boy was in fact a girl.”
Then, inevitably, the Sunday Times goes to a couple of self-appointed Muslim “community leaders” for The Traditional View™.
Bashir Maan, a former councillor and a prominent member of the Glasgow Central Mosque, said many Muslims would be upset by De Sondy’s comments.
“Where is he getting his knowledge from?” he said. “Islam condemns homosexuality. He is quoting the saint out of context. He loved that boy but it wasn’t for sexual purposes, he just liked that boy as we all have our likes and dislikes.”
Maan also criticised De Sondy for asserting that many Muslims were homophobic.
“As one of the leaders in Scotland said some time ago, we don’t hate homosexuals —, we hate homosexuality.
“So it’s not that Muslims are homophobic, they just do not like lewdness. They do not like homosexuality. These people, homosexuals, they are human beings. They should be, I think, not hated, but we should try to put them off such practices.”
Apart from the fact that I consider homophobic the direct equation of homosexuality and lewdness, I am particularly troubled by the pathetic attempt to delegitimise De Sondy’s views by saying they would cause “upset”. Contradict if you will, but complaining about hurt feelings is a coward’s defence and one that is used far too much by self-appointed Muslim “community leaders” to suppress reformist and progressive Muslim voices.
The Sunday Times moves on to the views of the Scottish Islamic Foundation.
A spokesman for the Scottish-Islamic Foundation agreed that homosexuality is incompatible with Islam, adding: “The view of mainstream Muslim scholars and individuals is that it is against Islamic teachings.
“Like with everything, though, people are free to choose how to live their own lives.”
It is sad to see the Scottish Islamic Foundation backing away from its previous uncompromising defence of liberal values – as reported here. Both Maan and the Scottish Islamic Foundation’s spokesman are defending a deeply conservative position without bothering to formulate coherent arguments; they simply state it has always been that way in Islam.
Quite apart from the fact that De Sondy has shown this not to be the case, this is not as good an argument as they clearly believe. For many centuries, Islamic scholarship tolerated slavery; certainly it is (as it is in the Bible) accepted in the Qur’an. People who make the argument that homosexuality always has been and always will be completely unacceptable in Islam should also make their case for why slavery is a different matter – which went from being accepted to illegal.
De Sondy makes an important argument for the acceptability of homosexuality in Islam and the “community leaders” also interviewed by the Sunday Times can only answer with intellectual dishonesty and unthinking conservatism. Sad but unsurprising.
38 Comments
Great piece.
Homosexuality is becoming increasingly difficult to defend on the lines of doctrinal sanction in the face of intelligent reformist voices like De Sondy’s. Instead it is becoming a point of departure for modernist Islamists, especially of the Ikhwani mindset, to hold up as yet another aspect of anti-Westernism to legitimise Islamism. It’s more political than strictly spiritual.
Western liberal attitudes to homosexuality, like the concept of human rights, is held up as a direct challenge to the supremacy of Islamic doctrine and by extension, to political Islamist ideology.
I was in a conversation with an takfiri Islamist “scholar” once who put it to me that there will come a time when muslims will be judged to be “true believers” based on whether they believed in the Khilafah and whether homosexuality to be illegal or not!
This is exactly the type of person who gets “upset” with questions relating to sex and sexuality in Islam. I wonder how long before these reactionary types resort to banning and, worse, violence to silence voices like De Sondy’s.
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
http://lonestartimes.com/2006/05/22/google-saudis-cant-get-enough-gay-sex/
I suppose not being able to see women at all pushes them towards gay sex acts, sad.
Perhaps Allah (swt) knew that most gayers are Arabian which is why He, in His infinite wisdom, revealed Islam there.
Yossarian
“One of the bizarre hypocrisies of modern Britain is that criticising people who claim religious sanction for homophobia can be labeled bigotry but, at all other times, homophobia is the unacceptable bigotry.”
Actually the hypocrisy is that homosexuals can criticise religious peoples lifestyles (fair enough) but religious people cant criticise homosexual’s lifestyles
That doesn’t make any sense. How many gay people have you heard going around saying that Christians should not get married. How many people have used Christianity to justify stopping gay people getting married? I’m guessing “zero” and “lots” respectively.
It’s great when you’re muslim ‘n straight. yeah!
@me
where exactly are homosexuals criticising religious lifestyles?
we just want you to f*ck off and leave us alone – not too much to ask is it?
me is “munir”/”blah”, PP’s resident Islamist nutter, by the way
cjcjc
“where exactly are homosexuals criticising religious lifestyles?”
are you serious? there are a number of homosexuals calling for curtailing of Muslims religious rights- Terry Sanderson, Douglas Murray etc
Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn? Bruce Bewer?
And dont gays criticise polygamy for example? or Muslim women wearing hijab and niqab?
Perfectly valid where religion is used by law as a means of persecution of homosexuals or women or Ahmadiyya etc.
Faisal
“Perfectly valid where religion is used by law as a means of persecution of homosexuals or women or Ahmadiyya etc.”
what a hypocrite! what do polygamy and wearing hijab or niqab have to do with these?
And since you support consensual homoseuxality why dont you support consensual polygamy?
And since you support consensual homoseuxality why dont you support consensual polygamy?
Who said I don’t support consensual polygamy?
But since you’ve called me a ‘hypocrite’, let’s turn this up a notch.
Since *you* support consensual polygamy I presume you also support the keeping of slaves? Or keeping concubines and having sex with your slaves outside of your marriage?
Since these are all sanctioned by the primary texts, and this seems to trump social norms which you like to hold up as a badge of your piety, surely you must support them and/or defend anyone else who does.
The problem is if you don’t want to legitimise homosexuality in spite it being a social norm in 21st Century Europe, you cannot de-legitimise the keeping of concubines, sex with slaves and the marriage to underage girls as these are all legit as per Quranic norms.
“The problem is if you don’t want to legitimise homosexuality in spite it being a social norm in 21st Century Europe, you cannot de-legitimise the keeping of concubines, sex with slaves and the marriage to underage girls as these are all legit as per Quranic norms.”
A stupid analogy; such things are not obligations according to the texts- refraining from homosexuality is
Since when do social norms take precedence over texts? Did the practices of jahilliyah Arabs take precedence over what the Quran revealed?
Since when do social norms take precedence over texts?
Good, you’ve tried to avoid saying it explicitly. See that’s a sign of social norms.
But what you’re saying is that for you, homosexuality is out. But slavery, concubinage, sex with slaves outside of marriage and underage sex with nine year olds are all legit because ‘texts take precedence over social norms’.
Posted this on PP and thought I’d post it on here for all the mutaqoon who defend Islam against khawarij heresy. Its from Sheikh Hamza Yusuf
“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
Perhaps you are going to argue Hamza Yusuf is an “Islamist” and a “khariji”
Sweet dreams
“But what you’re saying is that for you, homosexuality is out. But slavery, concubinage, sex with slaves outside of marriage and underage sex with nine year olds are all legit because ‘texts take precedence over social norms’.”
You dont get it again so Ill repeat. So where are the texts saying that concubinage et al are obligations? By making it haram the text says avoiding homosexuality is an obligation.
Which “primary texts”?
My understanding is that the only primary text in Islam is the Quran. Everything else is secondary and tertiary, or historicity and exegesis.
You dont get it again so Ill repeat. So where are the texts saying that concubinage et al are obligations? By making it haram the text says avoiding homosexuality is an obligation.
Some rather obvious points:
1) Sexuality is a property not an act of volition, an adjective not a verb. You might choose to do a homosexual act or have sex with your slaves/concubines and groom a nine year old child for marriage. They’re all acts of will but you don’t choose to be hetero- or homosexual.
2) Having sex with your concubines was a social norm in 7thC Arabia but we who live in the modern world would be lucky to have such fun! The texts might sanction them but modern human rights and social norms make them unacceptable. And whether you like it or not, you’re bound by the social norms you live in.
3) We live in a world where homosexuals, women and children have rights. Muslims living today cannot choose to ignore their rights anymore than elevate the rights of the heterosexual freemen and allow them to own slaves and concubines, no matter how well he treats them.
As for the Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, if that’s what he said I think that’s pretty irresponsible of him. By that is he saying the 16th century sufi sheikh Shah Hussain of Lahore wasn’t a muslim?
hmmmm…. Me is it acceptable to marry and have sex with a 9 year old girl? Buy a 9 year old slave and have sex with her without consent? Is it halal and allowed and therefore acceptable? Straight answer, not ‘it is not a duty’, am asking are these acts good?
Or are they unnacceptable to you?
Can someone define homophobia? Clearly…
Can someone define homophobia? Clearly…
The hatred of these songs-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8C43r4zm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g6bUe5MDRo
I think this is more about the synchronisation of the Islamic concepts of good and bad with our modern concepts of good and bad.
According to most Muslim theologians Homosexuality is evil, masturbation is haram, fasting is good for you, buying and selling slaves is morally okay and marrying 6 year old and consumating the marriage when they are 9 is also okay.
However, I don’t think homosexuality is evil, masturabtion can be a healthy thing, fasting is actually quite bad for your health, buying and selling slaves is morally repugnant and marrying 6 year old and sleeping with them at 9 is just plain wrong.
So the question is – as Muslims how do we reconcile what most Muslim theologians say with modern norms and ethics? How many of you would give your 6 year old daughter in marriage to a man in his 50s? What would you do if your son was gay?
I don’t claim to have the answers but these are the discussions we need to have.
Or hatred of the Pet Shop Boys and Erasure.
Or Donna Summer
http://open.spotify.com/track/6efRrfjV1YW1rtecLUHoP1
Abu Wanabe Arab, nice to see a level headed post here. I agree with you.
People who bash Islam based on, for example, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha have a lot in common with a certain type of fundamalist Muslim who wants to impose 1400 year old norms on contemporary society. They share a rigidity of view, and an inability to see the validity of other viewpoints, and just the lack of understanding that times change.
Hamza Yusuf on Aisha’s marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4IuDVFL3s
Yes, the same Hamza Yusuf who was quoted earlier as saying:
Notice that this is a description of the scholars’ attempts to define Islamic ‘aqida (which is what they do best). It is not an exhortation or an approval of gay-bashing – a pastime which is shared by muslims and non-muslims alike.
Also notice that one might accuse Hamza Yusuf, and his like, of double standards in that they ask people to understand that the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha was a reflection of the customs of the time, but then to accept the Islamic proclamation that homosexuals are outside the fold of Islam in a time when homosexuality is accepted and promoted.
This is a discussion that Hamza Yusuf may want to have have with openly gay Imams like Muhsin Hendricks and Dayiee Abdullah who seem to have squared their homosexuality with God. It would be an interesting discussion. Someone should host it…
“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.”
Faisal
He saying what islam says- someone who says homosexuality is halal is not a Muslim.
And someone who commits such major sins is not a “sufi” and “sheikh” much less a “saint”
Abu Yusuf
You share the same lack of comprehension as Faisal. He didnt say homosexuals were outside the fold of Islam – he said anyone who says homosexuality is halal (lawful) is outside the fold of Islam
With regards the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhi wasalaam)s marriage – there is no text telling us to get married at such and such age. There are clear cut mutawatir text (the Quran) telling us homosexuality is forbidden. Thus one who says it isnt forbidden has denied the Quran.
Why? There is no debate on this issue. These people are commiting a major sin by doing this – but they are still Muslims. If they say its halal they are non-Muslims
It is evidence of how deviant and extreme you people are that you criticise Hamza Yusuf for extremism!
me,
whoever you are, I did not say that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is an exremist, so don’t put words into my mouth. It says a lot of the propensity of the internet to transmit misunderstanding more than understanding that you could come away from reading my comment with this opinion. In my view, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is probably one of the most capable, correct, knowledgable and eloquent spokesmen for Islam, Iman and Ihsan, fiqh, tasawwuf and the path of Muhammad (saws). He is, consequently, a great spokesman against the modern deviant forms of Islam which go under the banner of Islamism. I have followed Sh. Hamza Yusuf’s lectures for many years and have complete trust and confidence in him and his opinions.
With regards to homosexuality in Islam, I would have had the same opinion as you until recently when I heard some fairly knowledgable imams. whose names I mentioned in my post, who have openly spoken about their own homosexuality and speak very knowledgably about this topic.
Personally, I have no fatwa about the subject of homosexuality. I leave the judgement of Allah’s creatures upto Allah. But I also think it would be very interesting to hear a discussion between someone like Sh. Hamza Yusuf and one of the aforementioned imams.
But you know what? You will probably come back with some further misunderstanding of this post and so it will go on. I am fast losing faith in the internet as a medium of discssion. So.. whatever.
Allahu ‘alem. wa Huwa ala kullu shayyin Qadir.
And someone who commits such major sins is not a “sufi” and “sheikh” much less a “saint”
Munir, it must be difficult coming to terms with the fact that thousands of simple people who have lived and died Muslims have heard all the fatwas, edicts and strictures on homosexuality before but ultimately couldn’t care less what the gainsayers and the orthodoxy have to say.
Legend has it that the feeling of peace that can be discerned at the Madho Lal-Shah Hussain shrine has the power to cure madness. Have you considered paying a visit or two?
Hamza Yusuf is amongst the `aqlaaniyyah (rationalists), mu`attilah (deniers of Allaah’s Attributes), and mutasawwifah – and his collections of video lectures, audio lectures, and his own website (still operative and available online) is ample testimony to this.
The courses taught at his institute use the book “Jawharat ut-Tawheed” – the book that preaches and invites to the heresies of ta’teel and (false) ta’weel and tafweed, a book which is a base and pole for the Mu`attilah. His institute teaches al-Burdah of al-Busayree which is a poem that invites to Shirk with Allaah, invites to Istigaathah from other than Allaah, and which has been refuted by the Scholars of Tawheed and the Sunnah.
S
Hamza Yusuf is amongst the `aqlaaniyyah (rationalists), mu`attilah (deniers of Allaah’s Attributes), and mutasawwifah – and his collections of video lectures, audio lectures, and his own website (still operative and available online) is ample testimony to this.
The courses taught at his institute use the book “Jawharat ut-Tawheed” – the book that preaches and invites to the heresies of ta’teel and (false) ta’weel and tafweed, a book which is a base and pole for the Mu`attilah. His institute teaches al-Burdah of al-Busayree which is a poem that invites to Shirk with Allaah, invites to Istigaathah from other than Allaah, and which has been refuted by the Scholars of Tawheed and the Sunnah.
Since when did you guys take so much interest in Homo’s?
Abu-Yusuf, just like sascha baren’s Bruno, you seem like a closet gay in bearded disguise!
Hahahaha.
Hamza Yusuf is a “rationalist” and a “denier of God’s
Attributes” and the Burdah invites to shirk.
Abu jackson, I really hope you’re joking, because
if you’re being serious then it must be a very
sad and scary world that you live in. I would
ask you proof of your statements but I know I
won’t get any, because there isn’t any. Its just
a received opinion or one that’ve fabricated on a whim.
Try reading the burdah with a Shaykh, not by
yourself, and try sitting with Hamza Yusuf in
a situation where you can ask him questions.
These are the traditional ways, the adab, of learning
in Islam.
In any case, thanks for the laugh.
abu jackson use to take drugs and beat me if I sang off tune, which was often.
As expected, abu jackson’s comment was copied and pasted from another website. A four year old article from a very poor salafi site. There is a link there of a “refutation” of the burdah, but the link is broken.
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=4260
“The burdah invites to shirk”. HAHAHAHAHA. What a joker.
But what any of this has to do with homosexuality, I don’t know.
The novelty in our framework is that it establishes a particular hierarchy in goods space that is both amenable to empirical measurement and has determinate growth implications. ,