And as your typical imam, I’d like to remind our gay brothers and lesbian sisters that:
1.Marriage is half of deen,
2.I live in the state of Massachusetts, where same sex marriages are recognized by the state;
3. Muslims are required to assist other Muslims in getting married;
4. I have a sofa bed.
Get the hint, already!
And for those who have not yet found their soulmate, we’re working on that one.

Nakia Jackson is awesome!

Laury Silvers is even more awesome, people! Stay tuned, she’s giving the khutbah for Eid ul-Adha. And a khatira for the Watch Night Service to follow. Be there.

This topic came up on Fresh Air with Terry Gross yesterday as a matter of fact and you can listen/read about Arab / Israeli homosexuality here. Even More interesting, Milo Miles reviews Marisa Monte from Brazil who has a soft, spellbinding voice and is a very accomplished musician and band leader. Her music is superb. Gay issues….Meh. Whatever.

Well, call me a fundamentalist, but I don’t think anyone who openly lives in a Ziina based-lifestyle should be an imam (this goes for me as well, since I was at one point doing it). This doesn’t represent any burning hatred of homosexuals on my part, nor do I expect spiritual leaders to be supermen above all human failing. I simply don’t think someone living in open and active defiance to Islamic Law is suited to be an Islamic leader. If Orthodox Jews want to do it, I don’t really care, I’m not a Jew and cannot really speak with any authority. I am a Muslim though and it disturbs me that, while I agree with what the progressives are saying sometimes, there seems to genuinely be very little regard for whether something truly is Islamic or not, rather a desire to make Islam conform to (primarily liberal) social theory. If you’re cool with gay marriage, hey, cool. When you start saying, against pretty much all evidence, that Islam is cool with gay marriage, that seems a bit odd to me.

This is why we are promoting marriage, dear. So that if a person, gay or straight, wants to be imam w/o being celibate, they can marry, have all the intramarital sex they need, and still be a morally upright imam. See? It’s simple.

Trouble is, Islam has no provision for gay marriage, therefore a gay marriage is not valid within an Islamic framework, therefore the person in such a marriage is commiting ziina. I’m sorry, but someone openly leading a lifestyle in contradicition to Islamic codes of behavior should not be a leader within the Mulim community. This line of argument is, frankly, disingenuous. And I think you guys know that.

Once upon a time, Islam had no provision for banning slavery, and it currently has no provision for women who live independently. Does this mean that we should be stuck with laws that do not help us live morally guided, fulfilling lives? That's inconsistent with Islamic traditions, which have held that fiqh serves Muslims, not the other way 'round. 

I wipe the asses of old rich Jewish women in San Diego, I see everything, from their vaginal area to bottoms.

Gustavo, I want to delete this comment but I wonder if there is any connection between the topic and this point you are making here.  What am I missing?  Laury 

Transexuals guarded the tomb of the Prophet and the Holy Mosque.

Homosexuality in elite medieval Islamic cultures was widely practiced and almost endorsed, it was never squashed or ridiculed.

Transgenderism lays outside the realm of most shariah legal systems in the world, so therefore being a male homosexual is punishable and lesbians seem to be punished less severely than men in shariah systems, transgendered people are not even recognized and lay outside the realm of moral legislation, therefore in some shariah governed societies they are marginally permitted to exist.

In shariah, the rapping of a boy has led to penalties far more severe than the rapping of an adult woman.

Funny how penis privilege in Islamic shariah systems has led to some interesting “God-given rulings” on issues of moral legislation.

But this also comes back to the issue of the niqab, some Chinese women were mortified when their government banned the practice of foot binding in the early twentieth century, but just as some Muslim countries criminalize purdah and veiling, the temporary inconvenience that banning the niqab may provide for the current generation of niqabis may be necessary in my opinion.

Capitalism led to the enclosure of farms in England that were communally held by peasants for subsistence.

Anyways, when can I have access to write articles Laury on the front page?

DA has a good point. The presence of homosexuality in medieval times can’t be seen as an Islamic endorsement of homosexuality. People can do what they want in their beds, I don’t care, but keep your sexual appetites to yourselves.

I’ve been meaning to ask you Fashion Mujahid, are you a lesbian? DA is on the money, you people have some of the most fucked up interpretations, almost as wild and unsupportable as the wahabis.

Whoa Nelly!

There is a big comfortable gap between:  Islam endorses gay marriage and homosexuality and absolute condemnation of homosexuality or homophobia. Let's be reasonable.

God is a big merciful Entity.

I presume that Allah is more interested in your religious intent and actions and less concerned with your sexual orientation. Gay or Strait, God must love righteous people.

What's all of the hubbub?

Typically, Progressives affirm the humanity of homosexuals but may or may not affirm their equal right to marriage.

Nakia and I, obviously, support the full equal rights of all Muslims to marry (and enjoy all the rights and obligations of marriage) no matter the gender of one’s partner.

Kecia Ali has characterized the present legal situation as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In these circumstances one should not talk about one’s sexual activity. To the point of this post, if two men lived together, loved each other, kissed in public, held hands in public, demonstrated their deep and abiding love for each other, there is ultimately no legal ground for complaint unless they confess to it or 4 reliable witnesses see actual anal penetration take place. Without a confession or witnesses to anal penetration, there should be no legal prevention of homosexual men acting as imams, etc.

Because anal penetration is not permissible for straight men and women as well, to keep things fair on the imam issue we should also ask straight imams whether or not they have partaken with their wives. If one objects to asking such a thing of a straight imam, then one should likewise object to asking a homosexual imam the same question.

As for either Nakia or I being lesbians: While I am sure she and I would both happily claim to be gay if we thought it would offend the offensive, we are both straight and looking. I would say we are looking specifically for ethically courageous men.

No, Gmasala, I am not a lesbian. I am an African American Muslimah, and that is sufficient to inform me of the pain of being deemed less than fully human, and stays my hand from inflicting it upon others. I wonder, Gmasala, what would it take for you to see your sistren and brethren in humanity as equally human? 

Okay, one at a time.

Gmasala;

“I’ve been meaning to ask you Fashion Mujahid, are you a lesbian? DA is on the money, you people have some of the most fucked up interpretations, almost as wild and unsupportable as the wahabis.”

I appreciate the endorsement, but asking FM if she’s a lesbian is out of line Islamically, it contradicts the rule of not casting suspicion or aspersion on another Muslim.

FashionMujahid;

“Once upon a time, Islam had no provision for banning slavery, and it currently has no provision for women who live independently. Does this mean that we should be stuck with laws that do not help us live morally guided, fulfilling lives? That’s inconsistent with Islamic traditions, which have held that fiqh serves Muslims, not the other way ‘round. “

Your first two sentences are inaccurate, and anyone who claims to be a Muslim and spaks you third sentence has some self-examination to do. You seem to be saying, essentially, that Islam is Allah submitting to humanity instead of the other way around.

“No, Gmasala, I am not a lesbian. I am an African American Muslimah, and that is sufficient to inform me of the pain of being deemed less than fully human, and stays my hand from inflicting it upon others. I wonder, Gmasala, what would it take for you to see your sistren and brethren in humanity as equally human?”

I can’t speak for Gmasala (and think the question was improper since your sexual orientation has nothing to do with this). However, you’re using classic bullshit doublespeak to say anyone disagreeing with a behavior is “dehumanizing” those who practice it. It’s pretty similar to the way neocons are always doing their “Why do you hate America?” bit to their critics, or Israel calling its critics anti-semites. Islam explicitly disallows a lifestyle based on homosexuality. I have no problem with gay Muslims, and even welcome them at the masjid. But saying an imam can actively and joyfully spit in the face of what allah has enjoined to fit a social agenda? That’s simply ridiculous.

Gustavo:

“Homosexuality in elite medieval Islamic cultures was widely practiced and almost endorsed, it was never squashed or ridiculed.”

Not true. While it was widely accepted, claiming it was universally considered okay across the Islamic world for centuries is simply a vast overgeneralization.

Anyway, I really don’t care what “Muslims” have done for centuries. I’m against clitordectomies, killing innocent people, religious persecution, and the like, no matter how many people do it in the name of Islam historically. Islam is not a culture and all that’s really important is what allah has revealed.

Buzzkill:

“God is a big merciful Entity.

I presume that Allah is more interested in your religious intent and actions and less concerned with your sexual orientation. Gay or Strait, God must love righteous people. “

I’m not saying “God hates Fags”, as I’m also not saying that “God hates smokers” or “God hates Pork Eaters” or “God hates polytheists”. What I am saying is that God has declared certain things off-limits for Muslims, and when someone is right there unapologetically and pridefull breaking those rules, they should not be an imam.

Laury:

“Typically, Progressives affirm the humanity of homosexuals but may or may not affirm their equal right to marriage. “

I support the secular rigt of gays to marry. I don’t believe the neo-liberal notion that Muslims have to climb aboard and start claiming homosexuality is healthy, natural, or halal. There’s a difference. I’m not in favor of masjids having gay mariages, anymore than I’m in favor of someone bringing rum and bacon to a ramadan iftar.

“Kecia Ali has characterized the present legal situation as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In these circumstances one should not talk about one’s sexual activity. To the point of this post, if two men lived together, loved each other, kissed in public, held hands in public, demonstrated their deep and abiding love for each other, there is ultimately no legal ground for complaint unless they confess to it or 4 reliable witnesses see actual anal penetration take place. Without a confession or witnesses to anal penetration, there should be no legal prevention of homosexual men acting as imams, etc.”

This is just sophistry. If people are living an openly gay life without witnesses to penetration, then they may not be punishable pursuant to laws on ziina (which, incidentally, do not apply to homosexuality as far as I know. However, this is irrelevant since communities have a right to reject a prlifigate imam. Let me ask this; suppose a man was a known rapist and made no secret to conceal this, but didn’t admit it outright and his victims wouldn;t or couldn’t prove his guilt? Would you be cool with him as an imam? I hope not.

“Because anal penetration is not permissible for straight men and women as well, to keep things fair on the imam issue we should also ask straight imams whether or not they have partaken with their wives. If one objects to asking such a thing of a straight imam, then one should likewise object to asking a homosexual imam the same question.”

If the straight imam is not advertising that he bangs his wife in the ass, no, we shouldn’t.

“I would say we are looking specifically for ethically courageous men.”

Ouch! :-) Anyway, I would ask if that means men willing to stand by what they believe even if it’s out of favor with popular culture and opinion. But I’m guessing I know the answer.

DA: Read a few of these, and you might actually comprehend my comments. Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, revised ed., 2000. Lindholm, Tore and Kari Vogt, eds. Islamic Law Reform and Human Rights: Challenges and Rejoinders. Copenhagen: Nordic Human Rights Publications, 1993. Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women. Oxford, England: Oneworld, 2001. Fareed, Muneer Goolam. Legal Reform in the Muslim World: The Anatomy of a Scholarly Dispute in the 19th and the Early 20th Centuries on the Usage of Ijtihâd as a Legal Tool. Bethesda, MD: Austin & Winfield, 1996. Hallaq, Wael B. Authority, Continuity and Change in Islamic Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hallaq, Wael B. A History of Islamic Legal Theories: an introduction to Sunnî usûl al-fiqh. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hallaq, Wael B. Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam. Aldershot: Ashgate/Variorum, 1995. Heer, Nicholas L., ed. Islamic Law and Jurisprudence: Studies in Honor of Farhat J. Ziadeh. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1990. Johansen, Baber. Contingency in a Sacred Law: Legal and Ethical Norms in Muslim Fiqh. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999.

And no, you don't know the answer- you don't even fully understand the question. 

An ethically courageous man is not afraid to think through a question like this to its very end, be willing to be wrong at any level, educate himself, ask this question from so many perspectives that if he does not change his mind on the issue he most certainly has gained compassion and an appreciation for every side.

No, I do not require agreement. I require a person to have some shame before God.

There are a number of men with whom I do not agree but whom I consider to be ethically courageous. I could give a list of some of them, you would recognize their names. But I will only give one example because I believe he sums it all up best (in particular, he is a good example in a public forum because he is happily married with children): Omer Mozaffar. There is a link to his blog just up there on the left. Get to know him, then you’ll see where I am coming from and what it is that I respect in a man.

PS: Do you really think a woman like me would want a man who runs around after me like a puppy agreeing with everything I say?

Dang DA, you beat me to the punch. That was a great post. Fashion Mujahid, don’t play the race card to justify your wacky interpretations. I don’t care what Abu Fadl says, Islam prohobits homosexuality.
You haven’t made a case at all, anymore then those who claim that “curry is sunnah.”

GMasala, I’d recommend the same booklist to you, but before you start reading, I’d recommend some basic English composition classes.

I notice neither the Koran or Hadith are on your book list. Is it safe to assume that this is mere coincidence? I may need a spell check because I type so damn fast, but you need a lesson or two in basic logic and intellectual honesty.
Don’t front, fashion mujahid.

> 1. Islamic marriage does not require a religious
> authority, simply witnesses, etc.

I’ll look into this. Interesting that you referred to a Shafi’i fiqh manual. I wonder how much you concentrate on the rest of its contents.

But of course the whole notion of “gay marriage” has no supportability in Islamic law. e.g.: Who are the categories of men forbidden to a man to marry? Can he marry his brother or father? (Na’udhu billah) Who gives the dowry to whom, and how is divorce enacted? What nonsense.

The authority is before Allah, and He has revealed His law, to which we are bound. This law gives “marriage” its definition and significance. Sin cannot be sanctified, and the marriage bond is a sacred one as well as being based on a legal contract.

> 2. Gay men can already legally lead prayer, give
> khutbas.

If they are known to engage in sin, then they will not be accepted by a believing community in any position like this. But if you mean people who simply have same-sex attractions, then those inner SSA are nobody’s business.

That being said, I did hear that the Maliki school has recognised that some men are “ma’boon” and it is disliked (makruh) to pray behind them. The scholar who mentioned it seemed to mean people with SSA, but the dictionary says “catamite”, i.e. younger partner in pederasty. Something to investigate.

> 3. [...] If I am correct, the only thing “really”
> illegal associated with homosexuality is anal
> penetration.

Not so. The generality of the Qur’anic condemnation (in the words of Prophet Lut to his people) indicates that ANY ACTION based upon homosexual desire is sinful. I discuss this idea more at my blog, Eye on Gay Muslims – gaymuslims.org.

I'm not fronting, Gmasala. And your latest comment inspires me to follow the Quranic advice and bid you: Asalaamu alaikum.

1.But of course the whole notion of "gay marriage" has no supportability in Islamic law.

-Neither do many Muslim marriages contracted today, where Muslims marry for mutual companionship, instead of a man acquiring a bride to improve familial holdings, secure an heir, etc.

2.e.g.: Who are the categories of men forbidden to a man to marry? Can he marry his brother or father?

He can't marry his mother or sister, either: what is your point?

As to the remainder of your comment, fiqh focuses on actions, not identities- i.e. one can't be condemned for being something, but you may be condemned for doing something. Therefore, strictly speaking, one can't be under penalty for being gay, one can only incur penalties for extramarital sex, no matter the gender of the partner, or one's own sexual orientation.

Now, do you suggest we return to the "established form of Islamic marriage", where a man acquires a bride to secure an heir, improve familial holdings or status, or in the case of those who hold office, to secure the terms of a peace treaty, or otherwise improve relations between foreign powers?

You’re so cliche, FM. resorting to the whole “Only reading my favorite authors (and be implication, agreeing with them) would make your opinion worthwhile” bit. A sign of intellectual bankruptcy whether used by Wahabis (with Ibn Wahab), radical feminists (with Dworkin), or crazy leftists (with Chomsky and Klein). Anyway, leave aside that I am acquainted with some of your reading list (I don’t recall Kamali’s vast pro-gay stint, though it has been a couple years), the Qu’ran and sunnah (which do not grace your list), are pretty clear on the matter. I’d find it more convicing if you seemed to have any concern for Islamic law when your weren’t using it to make a sociopolitical point. Anyway, a moot point all around because your opinions are not so deep that I need more education to understand them, they are mainly just childish drivel and unjustifed self-assurance.

Incidentally, being black is not a behavior, it’s a skin color. Uh, duhhhhhhhh. But good luck trying to say that Islam is just Manhattan Liberalism-lite with a few Arabic terms and rituals thrown in. Most Muslims will ignore you, and well they should.

DA: You present far more ignorance than I can handle at the moment. Asalaamu alaikum.
For those who would like to hold a serious discussion: depriving a segment of the Muslim community of the familial relationship that a spouse provides, and condemning them to lifelong celibacy to boot should give us pause. Does the Qur’an dictate that this be so? It’s possible, but it would be inconsistent with other parts of the Qur’an, which speak of God’s mercy, and the extolling of marriage as just about universal. Are the mates that God has ordained for and from “ourselves” only for some? Is the opportunity to seek a spouse and intramarital sex a right, a need, or merely a privilege? If marriage is to be denied to some, what limits must that denial have? If celibacy is chosen or imposed, it must be as available a path as marriage is to those who are able to choose it. Simply put, our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have no good options under the status quo. If they choose celibacy, they come under social stigma, not to mention the frustration that comes to those not well suited for celibacy. If they choose to flout convention, they are committing zina, not to mention the often grave social consequences. There is much work to be done, to be sure, and we need to begin with empathy, humility, and the desire for grace.

Haha, way to run away like a little kid. I totally own you in the conversation and instead of addressing my points, you just say I’m ‘ignorant’ and pick up your marbles and leave. Pathetic. I think we see where the ignorance lies.

OK, son, you think you got game? Bring this, then:

How are the maqasid ash-Shari'ah fulfilled by prohibiting gay marriage?

How are sex and marriage defined in Islamic traditions? Include connonative and denotative definitions. Include the current relevance of these definitions in current praxis.

How do you reconcile a diminution of humanity, of indeed a diminution of one's status as a creature of God, with a Qur'anic weltanschaung of universal human dignity and equality?

What roles do you propose for celibates in Muslim communities?

How is lust defined by the Qur'an? Again, include connotative and denotative definitions.  What lusts, if any, is marriage bound to satisfy?

Looking forward to your reply, son.  

If you think talking like a sociologist will intimidate me, you’re sadly mistaken. Though your cliche foolishness becomes more apparent when you go to the trick of covering that you have nothing to say by talking a lot. Anyway, I’ll be more than happy to hit this up in detail from work tonight. In the meantime though, maybe you could try addressing some of my points (you know, the thing you’re asking me to do), withotu twisting my words or avoiding the issue at hand. I’m also gonna pre-emptively ask you not to bring up any more this bullshit about “disagreeing with someone’s actions is the same as dehumanizing them”. It’s disingenuous bullshit, but you know it and you’re just evading it and playing word-games.

I love the “think you got game son” bit too. You sound so street, I’m so impressed! Cos, you know, white kids from the suburbs haven’t been saying “I got game” for the last decade or anything.

You’re nothing but a loudmouthed acedemic neo-lib, I could take you down on my worst day.

Lookin forward to the party, toots.

Aw shucks, FM! As far as going back to the classical motives of marriage, you meant to say I can’t marry in order to purchase the vulva of a woman?! Bummer. I got an idea: how about we go completely classical and I purchase GMasala’s cow-worshipping sisters as a female-slave / concubine! Yeah, man!

As far as GLBT goes: this whole thing is a question of how we deal with SSA people. I say, we don’t. We’re trying to make Islam fit with everything and sometimes, we stretch it to places I don’t think it ws supposed to go. The very fact that even Mullahs today and a large part of the elite practices/practiced male pedophillia and were never prosecuted for it, means that the jurists of the past either did nothing against it or did not have the power to enforce it. I suggest we do what the secular system is supposed to do: enforce the equality of rights and to hell with people who don’t like it and want to restrict rights… While people may not want to accept a pedophile as an imam, I bet tens of thousands do it anyway everyday and don’t know about it; does God invalidate thier prayer? No: “no sould bears the sin of another” says the Quran.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

What points, son? There ain't nothing in your posts but umbrage that anyone dare disagree with you, and talk about things that your young behind can't understand yet. I'm not going to apologize for being grown, that's for sure. Maybe someday you'll understand.

Given all the ethically horrific things which too often happen in “Islamic” marriages right here in North America, 2006, why all the fuss about same sex marriage?

Smoke and mirrors: rather than take on polygamy, underage marriage, or abusive husbands citing Q 4:34 as “proof” of their “right” to inflict physical, sexual and emotional abuses on their wives, some straight Muslim armchair moralists get all hot under the collar about the possibility that queers might manage to have more loving and just relationships…

And by “taking on” I do not mean the routine, formulaic condemnations of the worst abuses coupled with apologetic twaddle that we’re used to hearing; I mean an honest look at why such abuses are taking place, a willingness to call a spade a spade. There aren’t very many who are willing to go where Kecia Ali has gone in her book.

I'm not too fussed about SSM right now, personally, b/c I think that Dr. Ali's dead-on: our marriages need some serious work before we can get to SSM- basically, we need a decent definition of marriage, both on paper and in homes, before we talk about bringing more people into this. So, no, Omar, there will be no purchases of genitalia- unless you are looking for a new set for yourself. However, I do think we should start laying some groundwork on SSM concurrently-we need to establish the unqualified humanity of all. Improve marriage as a whole, recognize our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers as fully human, and then we'll have something worth celebrating. 

Damn, Fashionista got owned by DA.

Yet another reason to declare Haterade haram:
“I have had it with being excluded. I could contribute so much talent to the community—I used to, years ago—but now the mosques are closed to out queer people like me. They lost me, they didn’t have to lose me, I wanted to stay in. What a waste of human potential.”
We’ve got way too much to do to sip on Haterade- it hampers our efforts to be better human beings and caretakers of the earth. We need all the positive energy that we can get hold of, and wasting it by being narrow-minded and spiteful won’t feed a single child, won’t house a single family, won’t transmit an iota of wisdom to anyone else.
And about this supposed race card: how does being hateful help you uphold your legacy? What do your ancestors charge you with? I don’t know all that will be asked of me, but I know that serving God, honoring the ancestors, and passing on the heritage does not include bigotry, indeed it never has.

The girlfriends have kicked some serious butt here! And Omar, I agree except that, uh, pedophilia and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. The majority of pedophiles are straight. Homosexuality is like heterosexuality is like homosexuality, adult attraction and love and all the business and joy that goes with that.

“How are the maqasid ash-Shari’ah fulfilled by prohibiting gay marriage?”
Quite simply, by recognizing that the holy Qu’ran and pretty much any recognized hadith, Shia or Sunni, specifically states that homosexuality is a deviation from the correct way, and has no legitimacy in Islam. Whether mideval Muslims were fucking each other up the ass on a large scale is irrelevant.
“How are sex and marriage defined in Islamic traditions? Include connonative and denotative definitions. Include the current relevance of these definitions in current praxis.”
You’re so full of shit  Oh, I can use big words, that MUST mean my argument has legitimacy. I’ll bet you thought this part would throw me? Because I’m not training to be an English teacher or anything. Praxis? If you really wanted to be a pretentious, jargon slinging dumbass, you really should have said “Paradigm” in there somewhere. Or is that too 1997 pretentious, and you’re going for 2006 pretentious?
Anyway, the connotative meaning of marriage in Islam revolves around the idea that the man and the woman are GASP not the same, and therefore have separate roles and duties within society. Of course, since you’re just a latte-leftist, who seems to love the idea of an unnatural, gender-neutral society, this would not appeal to you. An additional connotative position is that men can have multiple wives, but shouldn’t, since the Qu’ran makes it clear that a man can only practice polygyny if he treats his wives equally, and states elsewhere that it is difficult or impossible to do so.
The denotative position is that men marry women, going to other men instead of our wives is unnatural and against Allah’s guidance. The Qu’ran and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith continue to give strict rules about the rights and responsibilities and guidelines of marriage, and hmm, gay marriage never gets mentioned. If you don’t like this, cool. But don’t call your Disneyland version of religion Islam, because it’s a cheap lie.
You have me on one thing. I had to look up Praxis, since I only have a vague idea what it means and wanted a precise definition. Because, frankly, it’s a nonsense word that nobody really uses. I’ll bet it really impresses some people though, the same ones you use forced, obsolete street slang around :-P Anyway, I was basically right so it was a waste of time. My answer is, Islam is not a religion of convenience that accommodates every latest fad. If society holds that eating pork, stealing from orphans, ass-fucking, having 19 wives, and drug use are okay, Islam is still against them, no matter how much you and your friends want to re-invent it as your perfect little play-religion. You guys have already gutted Buddhism and are working steadily of Judaism, have the decency to leave our din alone.
“How do you reconcile a diminution of humanity, of indeed a diminution of one’s status as a creature of God, with a Qur’anic weltanschaung of universal human dignity and equality?”
Ohh, even better, affected academic German! The more highbrow cousin of affected Spanglish. Man, this makes my cabeza all loco! Anyway, regardless, There is no diminution of status. I am stating that homosexuality is HARAAM within Islam. And nothing you can say will change that fact. A man can’t bring a pork sandwich or a crack pipe into the masjid and wave it around while he’s giving a khutba. This is not dehumanization, this is recognizing that Islam has a rules, it is a way of LIFE, and if someone openly flouts those rules, they should not be leading. It does not imply inequality. Now, as I asked before, can an open rapist lead prayer? I am not comparing homosexuality to rape, so don’t even try that cheap trick. I am saying that by your logic, an open rapist leading prayer is just dandy since peoples’ acts are unconnected to their fitness to lead a community.
“What roles do you propose for celibates in Muslim communities?”
Possibly finding another faith, Catholocism and Buddhism come to mind. But, if they don’t want to, fine. However, I believe that someone who lives a lifestyle directly contrary to Islam’s teachings should not be an imam. This includes many imams today, by the way; I don’t want them up there, or the openly gay or those openly eschewing marriage for no good reason. Or someone who flaunts their unwillingness to pay zakkat. I welcome all those people to the masjid, I do not welcome an assertion that what they are doing works just fine with what has been revealed. It doesn’t.
“How is lust defined by the Qur’an? Again, include connotative and denotative definitions. What lusts, if any, is marriage bound to satisfy?”
The Qu’ran defines lust in terms, mainly, of a cause of wandering from taqwa, though it does state that enjoying sexual relations with one’s spouse is acceptable but should not pull the person away from remembrance of Allah or exceed certain bounds.

There. Now that you’re done acting like a schoolmarm, why don’t you address the points you deny the existence of? They are very much present, but you want to ignore them because you have no answers. You know that your case is nothing but lies and your words reek of nifaq.

“The girlfriends have kicked some serious butt here!”

Haha, are you serious? FM hasn’t been able to address my arguments at all and just runs away and throws out double speak! If this is her kicking butt, I’d hate to see her as a gimp.

what are you guys talking about?

Allah hates Homo… that is a fact!
God hate Gays!

Now, if you repents and be straight again!
God is most merciful!

No one is born ‘gay’!
Everyone is born Straight and hetrosexual!
You choose to be Gay! You choose to sin!
Don’t make excuse! Being Imam is not for gay people,
Specially if they are open to it.
If they choose to hide it, that is between them and God!

Please be more proggresive and scientific!
and if you wanna be Imam or have a Gay fest(marriage?)
Make up your own religion and believe in your own truth… Now that is not so hard? isn’t?

FashionMujahid:

You didn’t grasp my point about “supportability in Islamic law” – think supportability as experienced in computer systems. Can your operating system handle this program? Well I am saying that Islamic Shari’ah does not handle “gay marriage”, as it is a nonsensical concept Islamically, even if some man-made legal systems accept it.

I asked: “Who are the categories of men forbidden to a man to marry? Can he marry his brother or father?” You said: “He can’t marry his mother or sister, either: what is your point?”

MY POINT: The Qur’an has enumerated the categories of women forbidden to a man to marry. It hasn’t said what categories of man he cannot marry. So going by the idea that anything not expressly prohibited must be OK, why would you say that he cannot marry his brother or father? (Na’udhu billah). And as I mentioned also, who gives dowry to whom, and how is divorce enacted? These would be serious questions to anyone trying to officiate “Islamic gay marriage”. And there are of course plenty more where those came from.

> As to the remainder of your comment, fiqh focuses on
> actions, not identities- i.e. one can’t be condemned for
> being something, but you may be condemned for doing
> something. Therefore, strictly speaking, one can’t be
> under penalty for being gay, one can only incur penalties
> for extramarital sex, no matter the gender of the
> partner, or one’s own sexual orientation.

There is probably no greater advocate for distinguishing actions from attractions in this matter than me (except my colleagues).

But to restrict what is prohibited only to one specific act (sodomy), while the Qur’an and Sunnah didn’t do that explicitly, is unwarranted. To live with a man is not in itself prohibited (or as far as I know, disliked). But if they mean by that to REPLACE the concept of spousal relationship with this arrangement, then surely they are guilty of contradicting the Qur’anic guidance. Some more thoughts on that here:
http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com/2006/01/22/zaki-badawi-on-civil-partnerships/

> Now, do you suggest we return to the “established form of
> Islamic marriage”, where a man acquires a bride to secure
> an heir, improve familial holdings or status, or in the
> case of those who hold office, to secure the terms of a
> peace treaty, or otherwise improve relations between
> foreign powers?

This, of course, is a red herring. Marriage has alwaays had companionship as its highest aim, as established by Q 30:21 and by the example of the Prophet (peace be on him), who did not only marry for those aims you mentioned.

More in response to FM:

> [D]epriving a segment of the Muslim community of the
> familial relationship that a spouse provides, and
> condemning them to lifelong celibacy to boot should give
> us pause. Does the Qur’an dictate that this be so? It’s
> possible, but it would be inconsistent with other parts > of the Qur’an, which speak of God’s mercy, and the
> extolling of marriage as just about universal.

At least you admit it’s possible. There could be any number of people who are not able to experience all the joys and blessings available in this temporary life. There are people who are asexual and will never taste that sweetness.

There are people who are poor and cannot go on Hajj. There are people who are physically disabled and cannot stand in prayer. There are people who are mentally disabled and cannot even recite the kalimah.

None of this lessens the people in Allah’s sight, and all of what is ‘missed out’ on in this life will be recompensed in the Next.

The call for mercy, compassion and empathy is a noble one, but one that is abused by some. Mercy doesn’t mean ignoring God’s laws. We should recognise the difficulties faced by SSA people and try to reduce the social stigma that is attached to not marrying.

But of course the path of marriage is one option available to SSA Muslims, but only really those who are willing to strive against their misleading desires. Even for those people, marriage will not always be right for them. But let’s not pretend that the road is entirely cut off. Plenty of folks will happily testify to the contrary.

These appeals to “what Islam says” coupled with all this venom against queers would be funny if it didn’t have such damaging consequences for the lives of real people.

This “Islam says” talk is laughably selective. “A man can have multiple wives but shouldn’t…” ???
Talk about a modern liberal interpretation! Nowhere do we see this interpretation of the Quran before the 19th century, and many Muslims even today (and even in North America) don’t accept it.

Different roles in Muslim marriage? You bet they’re different—and grotesquely unequal, in classical legal interpretation. Let’s not mince words: a man can forbid his wife from leaving the house, even to attend her own father’s funeral. The reason for this is so that the husband’s “right” to sex whenever he wants it is not impeded in any way. That many American Muslims don’t recognize this as “Islam” and don’t conduct their lives this way only shows that our notions of marriage (and justice) are culturally conditioned and have changed radically in the last century or so.

What I see going on here is that the proponents of conservative, “family values”-style Islam want to claim a monopoly on what “Islam says,” without themselves being honest enough to admit that what they are presenting as “Islamic marriage” is also a modern invention.

DA:You just proved my point for me. I'll make it plain, and even proverbial:"It is better to keep silent, and be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Once again, I'll heed the Qur'anic advice: Asalaamu alaikum.

Rasheed, I'd recommend the same booklist to you; it contains books on the tradition of fiqh, its aims and maxims. Sexual Ethics and Islam focuses on traditional fiqh relating to marriage.

God makes laws, God enforces them.

You who would mount Allah’s throne and pass judgements, you are overstepping your bounds.

Which is a greater crime? Sodomy or placing yourself above God?

The answer is obvious.

You High and Mighty, don’t be so hypocritical: the list of sins is long and I am sure you all qualify for many.

Religion would be more inspiring and more sound if people competed in good works instead of competing in condemning and fighting others.

Human nature is low.

Seek higher ground.

Fashionista, why do you “heed” Quranic advice when you are unable to present your case, yet ditch anything related to the Quran when trying to justify homosexuality in an Islamic context?
You got owned girlfriend. DA got you good.

Ah yes FM, I wondered how long before you would succumb to recommending me your booklist. At least I can say I’ve read the first on the list. Beyond that, it’s really pathetic if you can’t just respond to my points with anything worthwhile. Next you’ll be implying I’m just plain ignorant, by saying Salam. Well let me pre-empt you: Salam.

wtf? Anyway, if I spent time on every cotton-pickin’ fool that read a pamphlet, I’d do little else.
Buzz Kill, as usual, you’re on point.

At least you understood that much, to your credit. Wa alaikum salaam.