Talk:LGBT people and Islam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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

You are grossly exaggerating this. The only time that the Islamic Spain was known for their rigidness was during the rule of Al-Murabitun Dynasty, established by Yusuf ibn Tashfin. In other times, Islamic Spain even encouraged the book-burning of Imam Al-Ghazali's "Tafahut-Al-Filasafa" (Refutation against the philosophers) because the government assume that it aims to restrict the thinking of the subject of Islamic Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.210.2.118 (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi, (sorry I have no idea what this is but hopefully my view might contribute in some way)

I'm a teenage Suni Muslim who is 'straight'. If there's a view I'm almost certain about regarding homosexuality, it is that homosexuals should NOT be killed. They do no harm by being homosexual, so they therefore definitely do not deserve to be killed. I personally feel that having a death penalty for homosexuality is absolute rubbish and I will never refute this belief because it's a humanitarian thing, not a religious thing.

Thanks "and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (86.166.113.67 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC))." I have no idea what that means, there is no name for me to sign with so I won't add one.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


There is also a reference to pederasty in 2.3 Modern Day, "the segregation of women in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on male virility leads adolescent males and unmarried young men to seek sexual outlets with boys younger than themselves - in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[18]" As the reference is to an offline article I can't read it to check - but is there any proof whatsoever that these homosexual relationships with younger boys were CAUSED by the segregation of women and emphasis on male virility? The wording is problematic to me as saying one LEADS to the other implies causation, which isn't necessarily true. I suggest removing the first part of the sentence so it just says "unmarried young men have been found to have sex with boys younger than themselves.... etc." - any thoughts? Bethgranter (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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...

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.

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)

Accuracy

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

Qu'ran misunderstands of the sin of Sodom which was the lack of hospitality see Genesis 19.6ff. Of course sexual matters are much more interesting, and they have overlaid the point of the story. The Qu'ran is not a very accurate set of Oracles. It was not committed to writing until about two hundred years after composition. Anyone who has lived, as I have, amongst Muslims becomes aware that homosexual behaviour is not un common, and indeed "marriages" between Muslim males have taken place with bride price etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.121.158.32 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking just like a liberal christian. Who are you to say that the "Qu'ran misunderstands of the sin of Sodom" Have you studied that traditional exegesis of the Quran before you make that statement?

Another foolish attempt to undermine the Quran here is when you wrote "The Qu'ran is not a very accurate set of Oracles. It was not committed to writing until about two hundred years after composition" Funny. Your foolishness is evident in this part of Islamic history. While The Sunnah or Hadith was not codified until two hundred years later, the Quran was collected in a single book as early as within TWO YEARS after the Prophet's death.

Please, I'd stop if I were you, just stop embarrassing yourself with your half-baked knowledge about Islamic History. Just because the place you lived in practice homosexual behaviour doesn't mean that it represent's the Islamic faith; we can see that many Westerners who celebrated Easter Day and Christmas lost their virginity at a very young age, does this meant that the Christian faith encourage fornication or lust? Of course not. What you're doing is painting a broad brush of what a faith is to be based on the actions of the people in your surroundings. Just shut up.210.195.207.198 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

What Qu'ran passages are considered relevant?

Since the English version of Wikipedia is used by many Westerners not familiar with the Qu'ran, I think a listing of the specific Qu'ranic passages would be useful. (Surah and verse, not necessarily full text, but linking to full text might be handy) 4.224.252.183 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality In Islamic Countries

"Homosexuality is a legal crime and forbidden in most of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Whatever is forbidden is more attractive and homosexuality is not a habit that can be banned. So in all of these countries people are engaged in homosexual activity. As there are punishments for the act, everything is done in secret. Turkey is one of these countries where there is no problem when everything is done secretly."

That is written poorly And seems just like an opinion without any basis (from second sentence on). I think it should be removed Fatla00 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I went through and seriously rewrote, reorganized and cleaned up this article. I hope it's better for the changes! ^_^ Wilybadger 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1st July 2007 / Removal of 'Liberal views' section

I see no point in listing ex-gay/homophobic organisations under a title of 'LGBT Muslim organisations', and then under it listing a liberal organisation as an entirely separate section. Whether critical or approving of homosexuality, they are all LGBT organisations, and all need to be under the same heading. If there's some sort of substantial content that can be provided to warrant a separate 'Liberal views' topic, feel free to add it.

If you have some profound disagreement with this edit, please revert, but please explain why! Mentality 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


There are 2 sections which contradict each other on homosexuality in Turkey. 1. Despite being illegal(sic) there is a thriving homosexual subculture in Turkey. 2. In some place like turkey, Homosexuality is legal 81.179.72.238 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Couplet

There is a couplet that is growing in popularity in the English speaking world which purports to specifically describe the situation in the Arab world. "Women for procreation, men for recreation" Anyone heard of this, is there any truth to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.77.48 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Margolis?

Can anyone verify bit by Jonathan Margolis? I checked on amazon, the book does exist. But it would be nice to have the author's reference for this quote -- it strikes me as somewhat odd. -- hibou 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for "friday in the mosque my gaze fell upon a slim young man" on Google, which turned up two results: one was this article and the other was a link to a copy of the book on Google Books. Eco84 | Talk 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Malik

is this the poet better known as Ibn Quzman i'm pretty certain it is and have fixed the link accordingly, but correct me if i'm wrong --Mongreilf (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty section

I disagree with this edit. The Qur'an is a primary source, and to quote a particular translation and use it to support a claim of pederasty is original research. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used as long as there's no interpretation or synthesis. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The novel interpretation here is that the Qur'an here is discussing pederasty, which it isn't in the slightest. ITAQALLAH 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Margolis

Margolis appears to be a British journalist rather than a historian or a scholar, so I'm not sure on what basis he can make the claim of a "homosexual predilection" in a whole religion simply by citing one poet. This claim also seems to be a bit of a WP:REDFLAG. ITAQALLAH 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Colonialism

A tourist I meet told me about a book that was about how, during the imperial conquest of the Muslim world and the formation of "western" influences of colonial thoughts the laws and attacks on gays formalized (at least in some places), and the book goes on to look at how the hatred and rage for gays has the same roots in both the contemporary "outlaw" countries and the Imperial system of thoughts. If anyone can tell me what book this is I would love to add some article about how the postcolonial condition of many of the Muslim countries is the source of there hatred and rage towards the gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.135.23 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the specific book, but it's a well known fact that British imperialists introduced laws against homosexuality throughout the empire where there were none (indeed it was the British empire that brought such persecution down on homosexuality in India, still prevalent today where previously there had been none). You need only Google and I'm sure you will get many books. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Edit on Muslim literature

I attempted to add a short section on Muslim literature and it was deleted by Itaqallah. His edit summary claimed: POV edit as before, literature is discussed in the following section. a separate section for a manipulated quote-mine is inappropriate - and it isn't an accurate representation of what EoIMW says.

On rereading EoIMW it seems to be devoted to Pederasty not homeosexuality in general so what I wrote would be better there but I must take exception to "POV edit"

Here is what I wrote:

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, "expresson of male homoerotic sentiment" in poetry and other literature in the Muslim world was not only "accepted" but "assidiously cultivated," and far more common than expressions of attraction to women.[1]

Here is what Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World says that I have been accused of "mapipulating:" After a couple of paragraphs about Islamic law and homosexual activity the Encyclopedia entry on Homosexuality says

Whatever the legal strictures on sexual activity, the positive expression of male homeoerotic sentiment in literature was accepted, and assiduously cultivated, from the late eighth century until modern times. First in Arabic, but later also in Persian, Turkish and Urdu, love poetry by men about boys more than competed with that about women, it overwhlmed it. Anectodtal literature reinforces this imprssion of general societal acceptance of the public celebration of male-male love (which hostile Wesern caricatures of Islamic socieits in medieval and early modern times simply exaggerate). ....

Another question. The section on Pederasty starts out

The practice of pederasty in the Middle East seems to have begun, according to surviving records, sometime during the 800s and ended, at least as an open practice, in the mid-19th century. Throughout this era, pederastic relationships, poetry, art and spirituality were found throughout cultures from Moorish Spain to Northern India.

No mention of Islam. But the rest of the article does mention Islam and makes no mention of pederasty by non-Muslim in the middle east. So why doesn't the article say The practice of pederasty in the Musilm world ....?

--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can discern the significant difference in tone between your usage of the quotes and the way the EoIMW article discusses the issue. Besides, wording to the same extent is already in the article (the lead), so I'm not quite sure why a separate section is needed for this one sensastionalised passage.
No I don't discern any difference. The lead summarizes issues of the article. I propose putting the EoIMW quote in the section on Pederasty.
The difference in tone is that your rendition of what the EoIMW is saying at this point is rather tabloidish (i.e. "not only... but..." - not a structure employed in the text). ITAQALLAH 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's your POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a clear alteration in tone. Regardless, I much prefer the blockquote you inserted. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The pederasty section is basically a replication of the lead from Pederasty in the Middle East - which I believe is not directly relevant, as Middle East != Islam. ITAQALLAH 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There are many facts quite obvious to the initiated that still make there way into encyclopedias. I'm going to change the beginning of the sentence to The practice of pederasty in the Muslim Middle East ... --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That would, of course, be original research. The sentence as it stands is already uncited. ITAQALLAH 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this right, we have a section entitled Pederasty that makes no mention of Islam until the forth sentence: "Sodomy was considered a major sin in Islam." I want to add the word "Muslim" to the sentence The practice of pederasty in the [Muslim] Middle East ... to avoid any readers from getting the idea that the practice was regional and/or involved other religious groups. You think this is unnessesary since as you say "Middle East != Islam". But at the same time I do attempt it, it would "... of course, be original research," and you will delete it.
So it's both obvious and original research. Isn't the search already provided by the rest of the section? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I said Middle East != Islam, by which I mean it's incorrect to presume that a sentence (uncited) written in the context of a geographical location can be directly associated solely with Muslim literature. Therein lies the original research. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I misinterpreted your != symbol. You may have noticed that the section has no mention of any non-Muslim pederasty nor does the main article Pederasty in the Middle East.
Doing a little research I found that the main article was called Pederasty in the Muslim World until 12 March 2007 it was moved to Pederasty in the Middle East (then to Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia) without any discussion. I put it to you that Middle East without any reference to Islam or Muslim(s) is misleading. (Middle East implies the inclusion of non-Muslims, for example I have heard Arab Muslims complain of use of the term Middle East by some people so those people can include the Zionist Enity in what they are talking about.)
Here's an idea: let's find some actual sources for this material first before arguing over whether an unsourced sentence needs to be prefixed with 'Muslim' or not. ITAQALLAH 17:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Deletion of blockquote by Elazeez

Elazeez edit summary: Undoing redundant, incorrectly-tagged and incorrect edits. Please explain your views on talk page before undoing this

Explanation: The article has quite a bit on Islamic law and Homosexuality, and so something on Muslim literature and homosexuality (or homoeroticism) was added. The blockquote was used as the issue is very sensative and a quote by an authoritative source would avoid disputes over POV in "tone". It was acceptable to editor Itaqallah who is sensative to all this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Peace be with you BoogaLouie. I guess I'll have to offer apologies for not having seen the blockquote whilst performing the undo. In [5] I had only noticed the first three edits (namely the words the Islamic Prophet, [citation needed] and '{ {Fact|date=May 2008 }}',) which my edit summary had referred to as redundant, incorrectly tagged and incorrect edits respectively; I surely didn't mean to remove the blockquote though. I guess I was either scrolling down too fast OR maybe I had some browser-related issue yesterday since I simply missed that one. Thanks for reinstating the change, as well as for leaving the above explanatory message as well. And yes, you ARE right, this is a sensitive topic indeed. Peace 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

wait, how come libya isn't listed

I read through the "Homosexuality laws in Muslim countries" and I noticed Libya isn't listed. Isn't that country predominantly Muslim? --Dark paladin x (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Islam recognizes homosexuality

Something out of a conference in Indonesia a couple of months ago http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html discofever (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement. Immediate change required

The following line: "Based on the principles of the Qur'an and the Hadith, several eminent scholars of Islam, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Ahmad and Ishaaq have ruled that the person guilty of homosexuality should be stoned regardless of his married or unmarried nature.[4]" is incorrect. If you look at the source given for this statement, it states that the ruling according to the Shafi'i school is the same as for a heterosexual fornicator or adulterer. That is, if they are married, they are stoned, if they are unmarried they are lashed 100 times (not stoned).

Can someone please correct this ASAP? M2k41 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Muslim countries

I think only the penal codes of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan should be mentioned as they are the only Islamic states. The penal codes of other nations are based on European/secular law.Bless sins (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT issues

What are peoples opinions on renaming this article to a more wide "LGBT issues and Islam"? This article seems to give information on islamic views on transexuality (that it is part of homosexuality, or the prefered alternative). This would also make it more inline with the LGBT issues in hinduism article, and give a place to add trans issues (for which there is currently no good article).YobMod 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unverified hadiths

Adding hadiths that are not authenticated for... I don't think that's how scholars cite hadiths Faro0485 (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

There is a declared homosexual editor asserting his bias that there is some ambiguity about the question of whether homosexuality is forbidden in Islam - when there patently is not, and never has been. Izzedine 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh grow up! What a childish comment. What's my sexuality got to do with it? If you were able to write properly and remove ambiguity then I wouldn't give my suggestions for editorial changes. The only bias shown so far seems to be your own. You might well have strong religious views on the issue - I don't care if you do or your don't. But you do seem to have problems over use of the English language. Homosexual activity is not the same as homosexuality. One can be the latter and be celibate. Likewise one can engage in same-sex activity and not be homosexual. The issues are rather more nuanced than you'd like to give them. The text referring to Lut seems extremely ambiguous if taken at face value. Although I don't doubt that the teaching within Islam has been to see homosexual acts as forbidden. But nevertheless I would urge you to have respect for other people who are editing even if you don't agree with the edits that are being made. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore you've described me as a "declared homosexual editor". Hang on, but isn't this article about LGBT issues - I've every right to feed in my thoughts?! If your intention is to try and intimidate then I suggest you stop there. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hadith and Akhbar section

"al-Tifashi the Prophet is said to have allowed luti into the rooms where his wives were present, even when they were unveiled, and to have been particularly amused by their wit"

please, where did this come from? I've header something similar but it was not "Luti" it was an effeminate (Mokhanath) (مخنث) Will731 (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality laws in Muslim countries

This article is about LGBT topics and Islam. It is not about every instance of LGBT relations with Muslims. Most of the countries listed in "Homosexuality laws in Muslim countries" are nominally Muslim (for example Albania, which has been athiest for nearly a century now) and have little to do with Islam. Unless the information is presented in a source that is about Islam (the topic of this article) it doesn't belong here.Bless sins (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Islam" - but it's a social system as much as anything else, and therefore it's quite appropriate to treat the way sexuality is expressed in those counties which have been formed by the experience of Islam (just as we should regard England as a Christian country even though the vast majority of its population never see the inside of a church except for weddings and funerals). PiCo (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy text

Just skimming through this but seems to lack a lot of structure, and a lot of badly written sentances. For example:
Ibn al-Jawzi records Muhammad as cursing sodomites in several hadith, and recommending the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in same-sex acts.[11] (It is worth noting that Hadith are historical accounts and are prone to contamination and inaccuracy. This is particularly important since the Hadith on the subject of punishment seem a lot harsher, and to some extent opposing what the Quran suggests (if you kill a homosexual as per hadith, there is no chance of him repenting and receiving God's mercy as per Quran).
Discrepancy of brackets. Either this was supposed to have nested brackets, or a brakcet is missing from somewhere earlier. This whole section generally reads pretty badley imho OllyThe23rd (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

pov-pushing by article title

In 2009, Yobmod (talk · contribs) moved this article from Homosexuality and Islam, citing project consensus that a broader title allows more coverage.[6]

I can believe that there was "project consensus" at the time, assuming that the "project" in question wasn't WikiProject Islam, but rather WikiProject LGBT topics, which in effect acts as a lobbying organization advocating the use of the neologism "LGBT" on Wikipedia in all possible and impossible places.

However, such a move is not arguable. This article deals with Islam and homosexuality, period. It does not deal with bisexuality, it does not deal with "transgenderism", and much less does it deal with the notion of "LGBT" as an unified entity, an idea that dates to the 1990s.

It is very well to use the term LGBT when discussing the LGBT subculture as it has stood since the 1990s, this goes under "self-designation". When dealing with topics outside of this subculture, and Islam most certainly is that, it is not permissible to simply use "LGBT" as a synonym of "homosexuality".

An article with the title "LGBT topics and Islam" would need to be based on references that explicitly discuss "LGBT" in relation to Islam. Otherwise. It is futile to move an article claiming broader title allows more coverage when no evidence has been presented that such coverage is possible in the first place. I have grave doubts whether Islamic tradition even has an opinion on Lesbianism.

My suggestion is this: Move the article back to "Islam and homosexuality". Make "LGBT topics and Islam" a section-redirect to the #LGBT_movements_within_Islam section, the only part of this article that actually discusses the post-1990 subculture in relation to Islam. Giving the past 15 years precedence in the naming of an article covering a 14-century moral and theological debate is biased to say the least. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was true that the article didn't cover trans issues when it was moved, it does now, so the point is moot: the new title is more appropriate.
Whilst bisexuality isn't explicitly mentioned by name, bisexuals are clearly covered by the attitudes towards same-sex relationships and acts. I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that Islam is 100% okay with bisexuals having sex with the same sex, with the criticism only being against homosexual people? LGBT is no longer a neologism - and I'm unclear what the "POV" here is that you think is being pushed? I mean sure, the muslim critics might not refer to "LGBT" as a term, but I seriously don't think they're going to say "Oh, we have nothing against LGBT, it's just homosexuality and transsexualism we're talking about"? (And even if they did, it wouldn't make sense, given what LGBT means.) So I don't think there's any misrepresentation here - LGBT is being used to discuss attitudes on those topics, and not the "subculture". Mdwh (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Islam isn't aware that bisexuals exist. Islam categorizes by act, not by person - a luti is one who commits liwat, which is a specific sexual act, not one who has a particular lifestyle or prediliction. In other words, Islam views everyone and anyone (provided they're male) as capable of committing liwat - there are no hetero, homo, or bisexuals. PiCo (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lesbianism

This article seems to say a lot about what the qur'an and hadits say about sexual intercourse with the "same sex"... I'd say this seems rather inaccurate and misleading. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing in the qur'an (and I would think the same is true of the hadiths) about homosexual sex, which isn't specificity about men having sex with men. I.e. women having sex with women is not condemned anywhere (by virtue of not being mentioned, that is). Naturally, later muslim scholars may have had opinions about lesbian sex, but to claim that the scriptures condemn sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex, rather than saying that it condemns sexual intercourse between men and other men, is surely factually inaccurate? I would like to know if I'm wrong. If not, I would like the article to be changed accordingly and for it to mention this curious little detail.--213.113.55.253 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Staggering.

How this article does NOT exist on the Arabic, Persian...ect Wikipedia. (O_O) --Nutthida (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Blessings and marriage ceremonies by some liberal imams

In the last years some liberal imams celebrated blessings and marriage ceremonies during the last years, for example in April 2012 in France:

92.252.20.234 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern day

The entire modern day section just discusses Muslims who engage in clandestine homosexual acts, and implies they all do it, there is nothing in this section about Muslims against homosexuality, which makes the reader think all Muslims are secret homosexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.133.237 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't take that from my reading of the section. Can you perhaps be more specific? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

non-state actors

it is mentioned here that several Islamic states give the death penalty for this but there is no mention of how non-state actors such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Lashkar-e-Taiba deal with these issues. no doubt they also give the death penalty but this part of the topic should be discussed especially since several Muslim countries have areas under the control of such groups. these areas include Gaza in Palestine, Waziristan in Pakistan, southern Lebanon, and northern Mali. please add a section for this issue as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.139.194 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Misquote of Irans President Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his 2007 speech at Columbia University, asserted that there were no gay people in Iran.

This is a translation from the Farsi and misses a crucial phrase from his speech, "not like in America". Either the above stands and paints Ahmadinejad as an idiot as American commentators universally assert, or he is misquoted, as the last part is almost always omitted in US discourse. More likely from a literate ex Mayor of Tehran with a Ph D and elected President of a large sophisticated country, he meant that, or even directly said that (and I don't know because I am not literate in Farsi) Iran has no gay lifestyle such as in New York gay bars, gay dress and social activities. This interpretation is probably an accurate statement given his crackdown on gays. In my opinion the statement in the main text is American propaganda meant to paint their enemy Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Ahmadinejad as an ignorant fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Columbia_University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.9.57 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

equality and homosexuality and religion

  How about Inspired by God   For homosexuals    God said it is not good for homosexuals to be alone.  So he created a helpmeet for each a woman for the woman and a man for the man.  To be a helpmeet one for the other.  Thus is the word of God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.156.158 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


This is a very recent news release from the US State Department:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/state-department-sexual-abuse-boys-rise-afghanistan

The State Department in its 2013 human rights report on Afghanistan said the sexual abuse of boys, or bacha baazi, is on the rise in the region, with the practice becoming common in Kabul. “The practice of ‘bacha baazi’ (dancing boys) – which involved powerful or wealthy local figures and businessmen sexually abusing young boys who were trained to dance in female clothes – was on the rise,” the State Department said in its human rights report.

The report noted an increase in rapes during the year, with most victims being children. In fact, sexual abuse of children reached an all-time high, according to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

“Although pornography is a crime, child pornography is not specifically prohibited by law. Exploiting a child for sexual purposes, as was done with bacha baazi, also was widespread but not specified as a crime under the law,” the State Department noted in its report.

“Although the practice was believed to be more widespread in conservative rural areas, at least one media report alleged that it had become common in Kabul. Media reports also alleged that local authorities, including the police, were involved in the practice, but the government took few steps to discourage the abuse of boys or to prosecute or punish those involved,” the human rights report said.

An Oct. 28, 2013 article by Foreign Policy magazine said bacha baazi, or sexual abuse of boys, “has grown more rampant since 2001” when the Taliban was ousted.

“The Taliban had a deep aversion towards bacha baazi, outlawing the practice when they instituted strict nationwide sharia law,” the article said, adding that “one of the original provocations for the Taliban’s rise to power in the early 1990s was their outrage over pedophilia.”

“Once they came to power, bacha baazi became taboo, and the men who still engaged in the practice did so in secret,” FP reported. “When the former mujahideen commanders ascended to power in 2001 after the Taliban’s ouster, they brought with them a rekindled culture of bacha baazi. Today, many of these empowered warlords serve in important positions, as governors, line ministers, police chiefs, and military commanders.”

The article referred to a 2009 Human Terrain Team report titled, “Pashtun Sexuality,” which said bacha baazi is not considered “un-Islamic or homosexual at all” according to Pashtun social norms.

The report was done by the U.S. Army and is comprised of personal field notes dated May 15, 2009 by Human Terrain Team AF-6, which was assigned to the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Battalion and co-located with British forces in Lashkar Gah. It was requested to provide insight into Pashtun cultural traditions regarding male sexuality.

‘Women are for children, boys are for pleasure’

The 2009 Human Terrain Team report noted that “one of the country’s favorite sayings is ‘women are for children, boys are for pleasure.’”

Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam. “To identify as such is to admit an enormous sin in Islam – one punishable by death under the Taliban and one that would result in severe tribal and familial ostracization today,” the report said.

However, “even men who practice homosexuality exclusively are not labeled by themselves or their counterparts as homosexual.” Therefore, “it appears to be the label, not the action or the preference, that poses the greatest problem.”

Homosexuality is defined – “narrowly and specifically” – as the love of another man, the HTT report said.

“Loving a man would therefore be unacceptable and a major sin within this cultural interpretation of Islam, but using another man for sexual gratification would be regarded as a foible – undesirable but far preferable to sex with an ineligible woman … which would likely result in issues of revenge and honor killings,” the Army’s report added.

The report noted that in Pashtun society, access to women is “extremely limited.”

“Heterosexual relationships are only allowable within the bounds of marriage, and Pashtun honor demands that a man be able to demonstrate his ability to support a wife and family, as well as produce abundant wedding-gifts for the bride and her parents, before he is allowed to marry,” it said.

“Therefore, given the economic situation of most young Pashtun men and the current state of employment and agriculture within the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan, marriage becomes a nearly unattainable possibility for many,” it added.

The report noted a cyclical effect when young boys are sexually abused.

Many of them spend their “formative years” in Taliban madrasas (Islamic religious school), where they miss out on a mother’s influence. “Women are foreign, and categorized by religious teachers as, at best, unclean or undesirable,” the HTT report said.

“It is then probable that the male companionship that a boy has known takes a sinister turn, in the form of the expression of pedophilia from the men that surround him. Such abuse would most likely result in a sense of outrage or anger, but anger that can not possibly be directed at the only source of companionship and emotional support a boy knows, and on which he remains dependent,” it said.

“This anger may very well be then directed at the foreign object – women – resulting in the misogyny typical of Pashtin Islamism. Men and boys therefore remain the object of affection and security for these boys as they grow into men themselves, and the cycle is repeated,” the unclassified report said.

It concluded that such a cycle affects both males and females and “leads to violence against women and women’s suppression in Pashtun culture.”

“If women are no longer the source of companionship or sexual desire, they become increasingly and threateningly foreign,” adding to the cycle of “male isolation from women.”

CNSNews.com asked the State Department to confirm and explain the correlation between the practice of bacha baazi and the Taliban while the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan.

The State Department responded, saying, “As noted in the report, Afghanistan has made important human rights achievements in the past 12 years, but more work remains to be done to protect and expand on the gains made since 2001. The overall human rights situation in Afghanistan remained poor.

“The Taliban and other insurgents killed record numbers of civilians and pursued targeted killings of persons affiliated with the government. Widespread disregard for the rule of law and official impunity for those who committed human rights abuses were serious problems, and the government did not prosecute abuses by officials consistently and effectively,” it added.

“The United States continues to provide diplomatic and programmatic support to Afghanistan, including to civil society and human rights actors, as Afghanistan seeks to build a stable, prosperous, and democratic future. Our support includes building civil society’s capacity to defend against a rollback of critical human rights gains,” the State Department concluded.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/state-department-sexual-abuse-boys-rise-afghanistan#sthash.TA41mVEz.dpuf Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). MorganMac March 20, 2014MorganMac (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Table with views of muslims on homosexuality

This table is very confusing! Is it listing the percentages as percentages of muslims or percentages of citizens? If it is of citizens, then the percentages are basically irrelevant.-2605:A000:DFC0:6:584D:2F29:2471:36AF (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Map and article in reference to Iran are wrong

Homosexuality is legal in Iran, one can admit to be homosexual and nothing will happen. Special homosexual acts (i.e. penetrating the buttocks) are de jure (not really de facto, i.e. because of witness situation) illegal, and not per se death penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:DBC6:9400:84F4:8BF8:923:51DA (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Suppressed query about what was meant by "homosexuality"

Today in most of the Islamic world homosexualitySodomy? is not socially or legally accepted.

Since this seemed unclear, I inserted the query in the sentence above. This was removed by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sentence I added removed

At the end of the same paragraph as the preceding note, I added the following: 

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.[citation needed]

This was deleted ad "unsourced" by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Another reversion by user:flyer22

This was reverted three minutes after I put it in:

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with western Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.

The persecution of homosexuals in the Islamic world is very recent, and it is a result of colonization and the influence of Western culture. There is abundant evidence that until colonization, homosexuality was widely accepted. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Morocco was "a paradise for homosexuals", who fled puritan Europe in search of the sexual freedom one enjoyed in Islamic lands. In fact, homosexuality was legal in Morocco until 1972, and it was Saudi pressure that led to its banning. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country) it has never been prohibited, since the shafi'i school of law was dominant. The acceptance of homosexuality in the history of Islam is well documented, in different lands and in different periods. It was not something hidden or marginal, but socially accepted. Western researchers on homosexuality have pointed out, with astonishment, the attitude toward this topic in dar al-Islam. One should consult the views of John Boswell on homosexuality in al-Andalus in his works Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.[2]

deisenbe (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, MacMillan Reference USA, 2004, p.316
  2. ^ "La persecución de los homosexuales en el mundo islámico es muy reciente, y tiene que ver con la colonización y la influencia de occidente. Existen innumerables pruebas de que hasta la colonización la homosexualidad era plenamente aceptada. Durante las primeras décadas del siglo XX, el Magreb fue un "paraíso para los homosexuales", que huían de la puritana Europa en busca de la libertad sexual que se vivía en tierras del islam. En Marruecos, la homosexualidad es considerada un delito tan solo desde 1972, y esto a causa de la influencia saudí. En Indonesia (el país con más musulmanes en el mundo) jamás ha estado prohibida, siendo la escuela shafi'í mayoritaria. La aceptación de la homosexualidad en la historia del islam está ampliamente documentada, en diferentes épocas y territorios. No era algo oculto o marginal, sino aceptado socialmente. Los estudiosos occidentales de la homosexualidad han destacado con asombro la actitud mostrada hacia este tema en dar al-islam. Merece destacarse la visión de John Boswel sobre la homosexualidad en al-Andalus de sus obras Cristianismo, tolerancia social y homosexualidad y Las bodas de la semejanza." Abdennur Prado, «Homosexualidad en el islam»

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nom in order to reach some consensus before renominating. (non-admin closure) PanchoS (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

– These topics's titles are in need of a somewhat consistent terminology, especially after there has been a number of page moves without debate.
Now, we use "x and y" in titles only if a more precise relation cannot be established. However, in all of these cases, sexual orientation is discussed within the discourses of the respective faith, not the other way around. In some cases this may be an omission, as the LGBT discourse occasionally covers religion. However it doesn't hold doctrines or a set of views on religion, apart from where a religion interfers with the rights of LGBT people. Therefore we can clearly speak of a discourse within the particular religion, without subordinating the general LGBT discourse under the respective religious discourses. And while the acronym "LGBT" is widely used within LGBT discourses, it is not sufficiently common within general religious discourses. Therefore "Sexual orientation in x" clearly seems to be the best definition of these topics. PanchoS (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Oppose mass move, because gender identity ≠ sexual orientation."

^That seems like a perfectly reasonable point of view, but if so, then why does it make sense to keep lumping the transgendered in with homosexuals? It seems the obvious alternative is to proceed with the mass moving of those same articles, but to strip them of their transgender content, and to move that content into separate articles ie., Islam and Transgenderism, Zoroastrianism and Transgenderism, etc.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed text amendment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The is a WP:SNOW consensus, and the change has already been done. Just going to box this up. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:

"Today, in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted."

To:

"Prejudice remains, both socially (edit: or) and legally, in most of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts."


Beyond a problem of a clear generalization being presented in regard to LGBT people not being "socially accepted", the issue here, that has already received a lengthy introduction in the previous two paragraphs, is one of prejudice. As the next sentence clearly demonstrates, the issue may frequently be a matter of life and death.

"... In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty."

In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned.

I will leave a link to this thread at WP:LGBT and WP:Islam and Ping recent contributors to the article: Alexis Ivanov, AstroLynx, BethNaught, Bgwhite, BorgQueen, Chrisdike95, Contaldo80, Deisenbe, DMacks, Dialectric, Erodes43, Flyer22 Reborn, GermanJoe, GorgeCustersSabre, I dream of horses, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Instantpancakes350, JCO312, Jeff5102, Lutipri, Maplestrip, Nematsadat, Nøkkenbuer, Philip Trueman, Rupert loup, Serols, Tadeusz Nowak, Talebhaq, Tymon.r, Winner 42

GregKaye 10:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter at hand, but would like to note that there's a difference between simply "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts". Is a homosexual identity also not socially/legally accepted? How about a homosexual person who is celibate, or a bisexual person in a monogamous heterosexual relationship? It is something to keep in mind when changing this sentence as proposed. ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with the proposed amendment. Greg's suggested sentence is much better than the existing wording. I suspect that a few other Muslim editors won't like the word "prejudice" but it is accurate and we shouldn't be nervous. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In line with the above comment and after further thought it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should directly comment on situations that exist. It makes for poor and indirectly presented content to comment on conditions that don't exist as in "... homosexuality is not ... accepted". Different people are treated in starkly differing ways and the prejudice involved could not be any more clear. GregKaye 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur I agree that the proposed amendment is better worded and more accurate. JCO312 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no particular predilection for either option, not only because my total contributions to this article have consisted of minor edits and cleanup, but I have some concerns with the proposal. First, one of the reasons for the change appears to be that the current text generalizes the global Muslim community's willingness to accept homosexuality. In the article itself, at LGBT in Islam § Public opinion among Muslims, there is substantial statistical evidence supporting the conclusion that in general, homosexuality is not accepted among Muslims internationally. This does not mean that acceptance of homosexuality and LGBT people does not exist within the global Muslim community—it does and the article discusses LGBT movements within Islam—but it does mean that it is statistically true to claim that "in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially [...] accepted". Perhaps adding a qualifier of "generally" may be appropriate, but it otherwise appears to be an accurate statement and I wouldn't personally categorize it as a generalization—at least, no more generalizing than your proposal.
    Secondly, "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts" are logically distinct from each other, particularly in matters of theology. If we do change the current text by adopting your proposed sentence, Greg, I think we ought to make sure that we use the correct term. Though I doubt there is much distinction between the two in most of the statistical data available on this topic, let alone cited in this article, I would recommend using whichever term is strictly supported by the evidence. Do Muslims generally consider homosexuality itself unacceptable, or just homosexual acts? Many may find both unacceptable, but it would be inaccurate to conflate the two, especially given just how important the distinction can be in theology. If "homosexual acts" are the topic of most data gauging acceptability ratings among Muslims, then we should use that term. If it's "homosexuality", then it should be that. If both occur, either distinctly or interchangeably, perhaps we should include both terms.
    My third concern is a minor one: if both social and legal prejudice against homosexuality (or homosexual acts) exists, then it would be best to use "and" rather than "or" in connecting the two. Unless "social" and "legal" are meant to be mutually exclusive conditions, in which case it should be "either" rather than "both", the conjunction should be "and". I bring this up because the conjunction used in the current text is an inclusive or, whereas the conjunction in your proposal appears to be an exclusive or.
    Regarding whether this trend in the Muslim community constitutes prejudice, I think it's more than just that, but I don't know whether it's Wikipedia's place to categorize it as such and I have no strong opinion either way. I'm fine with either text, since both accurately describe the current relationship between the acceptability of homosexuality (or homosexual acts) and the global Muslim community. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer From what I have seen the passages of the quran that I have seen focus on homosexual acts. The article quotes a narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:72:774 to state that: "The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
There is clearly a potential for this to be interpreted in a number of ways. It may be a matter of "theology" to decide whether the passage's condemnation is against those who are unintentionally "in the similitude" of the opposite (sex perhaps due to their innate sexuality) or who actively choose, if that is the right word, to "assume the manners of women"
It is the acts that are typically condemned.
I would be interested to know more in regard to the potential justifications used in regard to the widely reported use of Bacha bazi and wonder whether there may be a link between this and the situation that contributed to the page boy image at the beginning of the article. It seems to me that the situation surrounding activities that are excused and activities that are condemned may be complex in some cultures.
When the Pew Research Center did their international survey they choose to sample views on "homosexuality" which may not have been the most relevant reference to have solely used in gathering information from people who ascribe to a quran referenced doctrines. It is people who perform homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual) acts that are scripturally prejudiced against. A potential threat certainly hangs over many people with homosexual inclinations who might otherwise want to engage on or just explore forms of homosexual activities but it may be interpreted that the prejudice against non practitioners may be indirect. GregKaye 04:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Greg. When I brought up the issue of whether to use "homosexuality" or "homosexual acts" in the sentence, my concern was about whether it accurately reflected the polling data, not whether it accurately reflected Quranic texts regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts. Unless I'm mistaken, the sentence in question is meant to summarize the general degree of acceptance that the global Muslim community currently has toward LGBT people, particularly homosexuals, so I think it would be better for us to check the polls and see what term they use than look to the Quran. It may be true that the Quran specifies homosexual acts but not homosexuality (I have no idea), but I doubt that changes the polling data. Unless the polls on public and international opinions specify "homosexual acts" rather than just "homosexuality", I would personally be hesitant to change it from the latter.
Quranic verses are definitely relevant to this article, though they may be better suited for LGBT in Islam § Scripture and Islamic jurisdprudence. In my opinion, Quranic verses have no bearing on whether to change the sentence in question to your proposed text because the sentence is about general acceptance toward homosexuality within the Muslim world, not about whether homosexuality is acceptable in accordance to Quranic scripture. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that the lead section is supposed to be somewhat of a summary of the article, and that the content of the Quran is described by a different sentence in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 16:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nøkkenbuer The sentence content as it has been set up addresses the social and legal position of homosexuality in Islam with the second of these having an even closer association with the content of quranic text than the first. The legal position, in cases where the law is defined as Islamic, is Sharia. As mentioned, if the polls failed to present both issues (responses to homosexuality and responses to people who performed homosexual acts), I think that the polls are flawed as the poll question might be interpreted in either way.
A representation of the existent prejudiced situation legally within many Islamic majority contexts should also be directly presented - and the fact that the foundations of the laws, within these contexts, have a basis of sharia interpretations of the quran is also of pertinent relevance. GregKaye 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a fair point, Greg. I'd personally use whichever term is found in the polling data simply because that's the only concrete evidence I would consider relevant in the determination, but I don't see much problem with changing "homosexuality" to "homosexual acts". I'm fine with both your proposal and the current text, so I'll let you and the others decide. If there is no substantive opposition to your proposal, feel free to consider my opinion as an Agree. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot I agree that Greg's proposed wording is an improvement on the current version, given the source material I've seen in the article and elsewhere. However, I think we could improve on it further. I think we should move to something like "In countries such as XYZ, which are governed by Sharia law, as well as countries such as ABC which have a Muslim majority, legal restrictions on homosexuality still exist. Social prejudice against homosexuality also exists in most of the Islamic world." This is wordier, but it separates legal restrictions (which we can clearly say exists in some places and not others) from social prejudice (where some generalization is unavoidable). Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    This division of the legal and social aspects seems to me to be a definite improvement. I would remove the word "still" from "legal restrictions...still exist," as this implies an inappropriate judgement about the (implicitly inevitable) direction of these cultures' progress. I wonder if "social condemnation" might also be clearer than "social prejudice."
    Also: later in the article I find the sentence "The Muslim community as a whole, worldwide, has become polarized on the subject of homosexuality." This is immediately followed by statistics that show an extremely small proportion of Muslims accept homosexuality. To describe this as a polarized situation seems to stretch a point, unless I'm missing something here. HGilbert (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    In my opinion, HGilbert, polarization in public opinion occurs when more moderate or less extreme positions disappear and the constituents of those formerly moderate positions begin to join the more extreme positions, i.e. polarizing. While general acceptability of homosexuality among Muslims may be a minority position, general opinion among Muslims could nevertheless still be described as polarized if there is a trend of a shrinking center, especially in conjunction with increasing contrast between the two outer positions. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t believe it would be appropriate to apply the words “not accepted” to blacks, jews etc. The wording “not accepted” here is in my opinion used to signify that the homosexual lifestyle is forbidden. it would not be plausible to tell a jew to be armenian or to tell a black person to be white. On the other hand the state does tell homosexuals to be straight. Misdemenor (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Capital Punishment

Iraq is included as one of the countries who have Capital punishment, yet according to his article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Asia. - homossexuality is no longer considered illegal there since 2003. Is it included due to the fact that ISIS controls part of its territory? If so, why Syria is not in that same group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.195.253 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_people_and_Islam/Archive_1&oldid=1147461661"