One of the few upsides to disregarding legal scholars is that one can have the kind of marriage that you want, without waiting for jurisprudence to catch up. Now, Muslim men and women can have loving, egalitarian partnerships, and hope that the fatwa factories get out of the mire of patriarchal, “owner/owned” marriages soon.

I disagree. I've learned from legal scholar Mohammad Fadel the benefit of addressing legal issues through "best practices." Fadel is adept at finding well accepted legal reasoning that resolves many our present concerns. He just joined us here as a contributor. Sometime this week God willing, we'll be posting a discussion from him concerning marriage, ownership, and marital rape.

Laury, I’m willing to listen. Nevertheless, I will have to wait and see how much utility such a method delivers. Is it simply a matter of popularizing such enlightened legalism? Can active spreading of it change the current culture? This is the kind of stuff that I thought I would learn how to work out in grad school. Ugh.

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

Well, then, should I hold off on marrying until Mohammed Fadel establishes the kind of marriage I want to have, legally? What if I wanted to marry a woman? Should I wait for the jurists to catch up, instead of doing what several gay couples have already done- found an imam, male or female, who was willing to do it, and,I hope, lead the jurists to a more egalitarian view of marriage?

Don’t know about that, but the point is that what best practices can be taken from the sources should be taken and they should be known by all. That sort of legal work can have a positive, direct impact on the lives of many women and men.

Since we do not need an “imam” to marry us, but just need to make a contract with witnesses with certain provisions, anyone can marry. As long as the marriage is announced publicly in some sense, it should be “legal.” The issue in gay marriage of course, both in secular and religious communities, is that these unions are shunned. I don’t know that Fadel will be able to help us there, I do not know if he has the interest.

But I do know that Fadel is a scrupulous legal scholar. If there is a way to argue a point within the bounds of the tradition, he will examine it seriously.

I was aware that imams are needed to solemnize a nikah, but they are preferred by many, and I do know of some that solemnize gay unions. There are also lovely wee corners of the world where gay marriages are legally recognized. Since I’m still (mostly) hetero, I won’t be needing that bit of freedom, but anyone who wants it is more than welcome to it.
I suppose acting outside the law to push for greater justice in the law is just something that comes naturally to some, even in the area of marriage.
Omar, the utility of the legal scholarship would depend on a great many things. I’m eager to see what comes of this.

My sense is that we need it all, the whole scope of activism from all sides—and I am not kidding, from all sides, even those sides I personally despise—to have a healthy umma. Bring it all on, let the truth out and best ideas come forward.

OK, Laury, but who’s going to be referee? Those fundies like hitting below the belt, and last time I tangled with “neo-traditionalists” I nearly lost an ear. Best ideas may indeed come forward, but they are going to need a mean right hook.

It is disengenuous of Laury to suggest that the article
presented by Varisco has anything much to do with gay-marriage
or gay-relations for that matter. Throughout the whole article
the issue of gay-marriage is mentioned only once and that also
in context of whether it “erodes family values” or not.
Besides this slight reference, which for all intents and
purposes was more about the supposed argument against
gay-marriage, the article does not even refer to any other
pros and cons of gay-marriage. So to even say, “ Dan Varisco’s post on gay marriage, the trade of young brides in Afghanistan, and the value of marriage” is a lie.

You know, I was wondering about that. I’ve just finished reading Sexual Ethics and Islam by Kecia Ali, and Ali points out that the same advances in traditional jurisprudence that would be needed to recognize same sex unions would also be needed to recognize this new form of heterosexual marriage- one of a loving partnership, where most if not all rights are shared in fact, if not by law. So while it doesn’t address same sex marriage specifically, the status of marriage in general is pertinent to the issue of same sex marriage. I also find it interesting that the work that it would take to recognize gay unions would be the high tide that floats all boats.

The referee is your own heart. The heart has the last fatwa, after all. I say to me, be honest, be well-intentioned, be willing to be wrong, be willing to admit it, be willing to care for others, be willing to have self-respect, be willing to trust yourself, be willing to say Allah and walk away when necessary. There must be more to say to me. Don’t be obnoxious. I forget about that one a lot. I think about how the Prophet (s) said that holding one’s tongue is the main thing needed to get into Paradise. I think about it, maybe soon I’ll start actually holding it.

You know how al-Ghazali talks about having your will under your pillow so you can die freely when the time comes? To me it is being able to die knowing that you struggled to live up to the honor of being a human.

The die trying thing is so important. Maybe this won’t make any sense, but all I have is Allah. If any of this were about people, I’d lose my mind. But if it is about Allah, then we are always turning towards and taking up the straight path. All we can do is die trying.

I’m getting all verklempt, I better go to sleep.

Hassan, why that reaction? This is about more than Varisco or his essay.  I mean to say, I am pretty sure I got the import of his piece correctly.

The insights expressed above are of immense interest to me.

My partner and I have been in a monogamous, sexually-exclusive (to one partner) same-sex relationship for almost fifteen years. As Canadian citizens, we had our relationship legally solemnized in the form of a civil marriage three years ago. If we had been members of a liberal Protestant church (the majority Protestant tradition in Canada) or a liberal Jewish synagogue (again, the majority Jewish tradition in Canada [in fact the entire world]) we could have had a same-sex religious marriage.

Laury Silvers wrote: “The issue in gay marriage of course, both in secular and religious communities, is that these unions are shunned.”

This is not strictly true. Same-sex relationships aree well on their way to becoming normative in most parts of Canada. They are widely accepted in Protestant Christian and Jewish communities as well as among secular society. The only religious communities in which they are not accepted are those which have an authoritarian, heteronormative social structure. And the only way in which to change this situation is not to simply accept that “these unions are shunned,” but to work to change that.

I have known many Muslims in same-sex relationships. Most of them have been completely ostracized from their faith — literally kicked out of the mosque in some cases. My heart goes out to them.

I notice on the website of the Canadian Muslim Congress that Farzana Hassan has written: “Our stand on human rights has been admired. Despite the fact that we all recognize that our religion does not permit homosexuality, we still stood up to defend the rights of gays and lesbians, not from a religious perspective, but on the basis of universal human rights.”

I ask myself why progressive Muslims feel it necessary to state categorically that “our religion does not permit homosexuality” (surely Islam is not a monolithic faith?) and to assert that “we stood up to defend the rights of gays and lesbians … on the basis of human rights.” This seems bizarre to me, because liberal Christians and Jews have made great strides in accepting gays and lesbians into their midst precisely because they have wrestled with their religious traditions, scriptures, and understanding of who God “is” and what God is “like.” Is such a venture impossible for Muslims to engage in from within the Islamic faith, or are universal human rights outside of Islam, something which need to be separated from it?

I speak for myself alone here. Not Progressives, not other Muslims, nobody but me.

I understand the Lot story and the rest to refer to sexual licentiousness in general, not homosexuality. A committed relationship is a committed relationship as far as I am concerned.

I do not make the rules. Jurist do. So one must admit the fact of the law and work for change according to one’s conscience.

“I understand the Lot story and the rest to refer to sexual licentiousness in general, not homosexuality.”

I’m with Laury 1400% one percent for every year post-Prophet.

It’s funny to me: I swear when I first read the Lut story in the Qur’an homosexuality didn’t really even come to mind. I had known the story through Jewish Talmud (I’m not nor never was Jewish, but have a secret mentor who is!) where the lut story goes waaaaay the F beyond homosexuality, and in that it’s rape straight up. It took the helpful index of the “free-mind.org” people to help remind me that this story is about homosexuality. Of course I say f- to that. If these so-called scholars actually traced the lot story back through the writing of the other faiths that wrote about it they would see that this whole Lut=homosexuality thing is BS to the max!

But this little incident made it plain and clear that you get out of the book what you put in. It’s a mirror first and foremost (to me that is). If you’re down on homosexuality you can read that into the frickin don’t it pigs verses if it makes you feel any better.

The reality is, homosexuality was a prevalent practice among ancient Near Eastern royalty, but the Old Testament and the ethno-centricity of tribal Judaism as being the “Chosen People” would be hostile to a practice that was deemed indicative of the “moral depravity” of the goyim.

The ancient Hebrews were always on the verge of extinction from greater powers in the region who outnumbered them in population.

The heteronormativity embraced by the followers of Abraham was due to survival, ensuring a gene pool for the next generation and the culture that the current generation possessed.

Homosexual sex does not ensure survival of the species, it is an act that does not result in reproduction, maybe the only thing it can result in is the spread of venereal diseases via a mode of transmission where a susceptible host has been infected via a portal of entry.

This is the chain of infection, this same chain is exhibited by heterosexuals as well.

Causative agents love warm, dark, and moist environments.

Sorry, I’m taking pre-nursing courses and currently studying for being a Certified Nurse Assistant while I decide to either go into nursing or medicine for sure.

Yes, I have succumb to the “Muslim ghetto professions” since academia in the liberal arts seems appealing, there is no money for research, and assistant and tenured professors are thrust into this “publish or perish” world, what happens if I get writer’s block.

Laury, it seems to me that you don’t “understand the Lot story” at all. I say to you and Baraka B that you would do well to at least quote from this “story” (rather, the 8 accounts of it in the Qur’an), so that we can see the basis of your interpretation shine through. What would happen if you selected just one of these passages, such as the first one in the text, i.e. 7:80-84? Could anyone explain how that can be taken to refer to rape?

Well Rasheed, if you argue that way then tell me that the verses don’t also indicate that no one ever before had homosexual sex? This is the logical outcome of reading it the way you do. People do argue that, of course they make about as much sense as Creationists, but whatever. One cannot claim that the Qur’an is a history textbook.

As for it being better to use women rather than men in such circumstances? Well at the time of the Prophet, women were owned by men for sexual use. Of course it would be strange if men used men for sex, when they should more properly use women. Mind you, I am not approving this, just saying it fits.

What is the unusual thing here? A whole city of people treating each other like nothing but sexual objects. Sexual licentiousness. A whole city of Adult Friend Finder users.

Rasheed seems hostile to “Proggies” in general, but his blog on reforming gay Muslims offers no solutions, just bashing more liberal minded Muslims.

What is his methodology to making someone a heterosexual with opposite sex desire?

egads, I didn’t look at his blog. I was going to apologize for being pissy.

Laury, the verses do indeed indicate that nobody committed the obscenity of homosexual ‘sex’ before, and personally I have no problem with that notion. Is there proof to the contrary? I don’t know of anything other than assumption based on evolutionary philosophy (as opposed to its scientific wing).

I don’t see the Qur’an as a history textbook, but that doesn’t mean it is acceptable to consider it contradictory to history. One can interpret it in as many layers of fog we choose, but that only begs the question of why he should believe in it at all.

“As for it being better to use women rather than men in such circumstances? Well at the time of the Prophet, women were owned by men for sexual use. Of course it would be strange if men used men for sex, when they should more properly use women. Mind you, I am not approving this, just saying it fits.”

I don’t get your point, so kindly do explain further.

GUSTAVO: I can safely assume you haven’t looked through the whole blog, but you’re right in that my aim isn’t so much to provide solutions as to discuss the phenomenon of the Queer Muslim movement from an Islamic perspective. These “liberal minded” people shut down debate when it is presented in their groups, so I take it upon myself merely to present and critique what they are saying.

If you want to know about solutions, one helpful start is to click on the “Advice” tag at my blog.

Rasheed, if that's what it means to you, no one here will deny you the right to your own persepective. But do note that your perspective contains a bias and flaws, as individual perspectives do. Laury's perspective has its own biases and flaws. The matter is to choose the biased, flawed perspective that helps us reach our goals. Laury's (and my) goals include emulating Divine 'Adl and Ihsan. Do yours? About historical accuracy: figuring this out depends upon whether you see the Qur'an's accounts as historical or mythological. If one views the story of Lut as history, one must attempt to place it in history. If one views it as myth, one only needs to remove the particulars to pursue the life lessons contained therein. A few essential lessons I see in the story of Lut include: 1. Those who are vulnerable are to be protected, even at one's personal expense. 2.One must provide for those in a moment of need, including but not limited to the protection in #1. 3. There is nothing to be gained by longing for a bad situation. (Anyone missing a lousy ex, write this one down!) 4. Sometimes one must realize that a bad situation cannot be changed, and that you must remove yourself from it, lest it change you. Rasheed, I'm not exactly sure what you failed to understand about Laury's quote, so I'll go for an obvious one, but you'll have to ask a specific question in order to get the answer you do want. Gender and status of ownership were linked during pre-modern times. A man owned; a woman WAS owned. Even for women who owned male slaves, she could not take her male slave as a concubine, or use him sexually until he married her. (Note the subject and object in that last clause) This was because it was deemed impossible, in matters of sexual relationships, for a woman to be an active or equal partner; she had to be a passive partner- acted upon, used, but never acted with. The sex act came to be viewed as a man dominating a woman (or another man in the "female" role), rather than a coming together (pun intended) of equals. So women were deemed the only appropriate sexual companion because they were the ones "destined" to be used, and sex was always a matter of a man "using" someone. The vestiges of this remain today, when people assume that in a gay couple, that one plays a "female" role, and wonder just what lesbians do with one another. Interestingly, there is something of a parallel in ideas about race: when people subscribe to the idea that high culture consists of European-derived practices, they blind themselves to ideas like:there is far more to formal wear than tuxedos, that a musical performance among the elite may not involve strings, and may indeed use a great many drums, that meeting with royalty means that black is verboten, and other aspects that cultivated ignorance would deprive one of. Rasheed, you can't envision a sexual relationship as a loving partnership between equals. I feel sorry for you, but know that there is more in Heaven and Earth than is featured in your evenings.

FM, thanks for taking time to reply. You would have done better not to stoop to assumptions about me though, such as that I “can’t envision…” – rather, I was asking Laury to clarify whether she was implying that Prophet Lut (pbuh) was offering the women of Sodom to be “owned”? Whether she thinks that this is the idea promoted in the Qur’an verses? Whether she imagines this was influenced by the Arab customs, rather than being the divine influence that would change their ways, or at least for those who would respond?

You ask me to choose whether the Qur’anic account is history or myth – if it’s really a choice between the twom I would say it’s history but the meaning is to be understood on the basis of Qur’anic sciences, not uncertain anthropological theories or vague “goals”.

Rasheed, if one cannot draw conclusions from evidence, it’s very difficult to do much. My conclusion may have been wrong, but it was based upon your posts heretofore.
Rasheed, there are intellectual traditions in Islam that extend far beyond that of merely reading the Qur’an. Some of these are traditions of reading meaning from the Qur’an, some of these traditions are jurisprudential. I’d recommend a reading of the works of Dr. Khaled Abou el Fadl and Kecia Ali to understand the role of these traditions in understandings of the Qur’an and developing fiqh. Laury is quite aware of these traditions, and may have assumed that others are as well.
I did not ask you to choose whether the Qur’anic account is mythical or historical- I pointed out the difference between the approaches. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Rasheed. If the Qur’an is to be read the way you have proposed, then you need to look at all the versions you have pulled out. Indeed, look at all the versions of any story. Find if the Qur’an is concerned with history like the Hebrew Bible is. Find out what the Qur’an’s greatest concern is. God have mercy on you. Really. God knows your beauty, even if you do not.

If you want to get down to all the little conservative legalities one could argue that the only real issue is male on male anal penetration. No kidding. There was a discussion on this matter once on a list serve. I’ll have to look it up.

Does the Qur’an promote concubinage? That is hard to answer. It certainly regulates it.

So glad FM is in charge, cause her answers are really good!

I haven’t really proposed anything in particular, except to say that the Qur’anic sciences are vast and well developed, especially by those people who have had the basic prerequisites (such as mastery of the Arabic language) and much more besides.

It seems your advocacy for plainly sinful things relies on portraying the Qur’an as a vague mystical text which cannot be understood except by an elite, but not THAT elite that has imposed its patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic, conservative interpretation on the Islamic normative tradition.

Really, the meaning of the 8 relevant passages about Sodom in the Qur’an are quite simple to grasp on surface. And their depths have been explored by the masters of exegesis of the past and contemporary times.

On your point about “male on male penetration” – actually, the more obvious interpretation from 7:81 is that the condemned acts are any that are sexual in nature and motivated by homosexual desire. I don’t see the evidence for the condemnation being of any specific act, let alone of it being rape. (And I am amazed that you seem to be suggesting that the Prophet Lut was advocating raping women! Please do correct me.)

Rasheed, if you haven’t proposed a particular reading of the Qur’an, why are you insisting that is forbids homosexual sex, or that the passage says anything at all? One cannot state an opinion or belief about something and not be accountable for one’s statements.
These “plainly sinful things” are plainly sinful to you, but not to all, and your presumption that they are sinful lies upon extratextual sources that you have not yet accounted for.
The Qur’an can be read as a historical document that can be at least partially understood by a layperson without reading bigotry into the text. Scott Kugle proves that it’s possible to read that passage historically sans bigotry, and I prove that it’s possible for a layperson to read it without drawing something as dangerous as bigotry from that passage, or inserting any of my own.
If the passages are so simple, why have scholars spent millenia trying to decipher them? I would argue that it is because the Qur’an is not a simple-minded text, that it is for those who read, reflect, and read again.
If your interpretation is so obvious, it would be either because you are reading the interpretation onto the passage, or an interpretation has been read onto it for you.
In order to develop the reading that I have of it, I had to wipe my mind clear of social constructions and assumptions, and remind myself that this is the word of God, who is quite above pettiness and insecurity. Try reading the passage that way- you may be surprised at the nuances that appear.