Quranic Values as an Inspiration for Gay Marriage

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

- NOAM CHOSKY

if her argument is true then pedofiles should be allowed to sleep with little boys and girls or even animals like cows and sheeps and lamas it is their desire after all

as we would say in the islamic world
(islam is innocent from you)

what a shame. I highly doubt this lady is a Muslim remeber that a Muslim is one who submit to God. Allah had made it clear for us that Prophet Mohammed PBUH is our rolemodle and perfect example and he tells us (interpitation) the believing men and women shall not have an option when Allah and his Prophet have decided on somthing. our job is to say we hear and we obey
you are engaging in a BEDAA (invention in the religion) remeber that Mohammed PBUH said every bedaa is a thalalah (misquidance) and every thalalh is in hell fire. let me remined you but telling u FAIR ALLAH

pamela study the religion Islam thoroughly before you say something.
Each muslim guard this religion very very closly.
May be you do not know that on small issues they do not compromise what to talk of such big issues as gay marriage.
This is out right regected by ummah as ummah rejected idea of women Imam.
You cannot bring any consent on your views from any where in the islamic world.
Islam has survived many time of such hateful attacks

Truly an unacceptable proposition by Taylor which calls into question her intellect and comprehension. The secular humanist capitalist ideology appears to be te basis of her thought and Islam is merely the religious trapping in which she presents her thought.

As for the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East: religion is NOT the basis of the struggle. The Jews are motivated by Zionism, ethnic nationalism. They are empowered by Capitalism which ignited ethnic nationalist movements around the world to offset existing states, empires, colonies.

At this very moment, according to US Congress report, Israel is unable to sustain itself without billions from America, the most powerful Capitalist nation. So the heart of the matter is ideological and Capitalism, as in Democratic capitalism which empowers ethnica nationalism, is the heart of the matter in the Middle East.

In fact, the Muslim world was divided into tiny poor nation states NOT according to popular movements, but according to imperial designs in order to create ethnic nationalist enclaves which in turn are enforced by brutal militaries supported by Capitalism.

So the problem in the world is Capitalism.

hobwahid :

You wrote, " Either way, you know what Christian Arabs were calling God before Islam came and before most of Europe was even Christian? Allah,"

This is true, but Allah is a generic Arabic word meaning God, just like God is a generic American or English word meaning God.

Whereas Yahweh is a Hebrew word that translates as I AM or I AM WHO AM or the equivalent of this.

You wrote this in response to halozcel1 writing, "1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.".

Then you wrote, "I know a few million Jews who would disagree with you on that point. It's not the God of the Bible who has a son, but the God of the New Testament."

Jesus was a Jew and He was referring to Yahweh when He said, "I and the Father are One" and also when He said to Phillip, "Phillip how long have you been with Me, when you see Me, you see the Father". So yes, according to Jesus, the God of the Torah, the law and the prophets, the psalms and Jesus are One and the Same.

Since the god of islam disputes this, then the god of islam and the God of the bible are not the same, even the god of islam speaks the truth sometimes, as we all know the best liars use some truth.

Sometimes something that is almost the truth is harder to see thru than something that is a total lie, but that does not make it the truth.

The New Testament is a continuation and unfolding of the Plan of God which God has had since before creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

As I have said before, "The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereos.

I have also said, "It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Anaselghafari,

Appreciate your detailed comments. First on decides whether he is a believer or not and then he should forward his case. It is useless to discuss the laws of Quran when one do not believe that this word of God.
Thankyou for these points.
The fact is some people on this forum do not come here to indulge in healthy dialouge but to throw insult and to demonize Islam. Few of them are "Murtids" who most probalbly came out of Iran and are burning in their rage.
Then the atheists - who just abuse every religion.
persons like helocels dont deserve any attention.

w/salam and peace.

This is not a matter acceptance. It is a matter of constitutional rights and respects for the rule of law. We have wars because we lack the tolerance over things that is contrary to our faith and aspirations. Why push our religious dogmas, creeds and sentiments on things which will cause only frictions?

The best way to approach this thing is through tolerance. Jews and Muslims continue to fight in the Arabia because of their nonacceptance. Why can't they live side by side in harmony when in fact they are brothers by their father Abraham. It goes by saying that, I go and practice mine and you go practice yours, but don't cross the border by stepping over what is mine. If they want converts, let their actions speaks of it, that people may know by their actions, they have a genuine God.

Freedom is not freedom unless every choice we have is coupled with an eye of nonapproval by being different.

"halozcel1

Anaselghafari,

1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.
-God of Bible has Son,but quran absolutely rejects abd curses Son of God.
-Bible says the last one is Jesus,but quran says the founder of islam is the last one."

I know a few million Jews who would disagree with you on that point. It's not the God of the Bible who has a son, but the God of the New Testament. Either way, you know what Christian Arabs were calling God before Islam came and before most of Europe was even Christian? Allah, so I'd be careful with your attempts to use Allah because of some perceived pejoration.

Quranic Values as an Inspiration for Gay Marriage - this is a joke, right?

Muslims kill gays or torture them and throw them in prison. Pamela should go work for Karl Rove.

Anaselghafari,

1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.
-God of Bible has Son,but quran absolutely rejects abd curses Son of God.
-Bible says the last one is Jesus,but quran says the founder of islam is the last one.
-Allah of Islam can not be the Creator,because Allah hates 85 percent of world population(non-muslims/infidels).How can a Creator hate anyone who created by Himself ?

2-*Marriage* is a wrong word and concept.If a man can *take* four women and whenever he likes kicks them or one of them out,this shouldnt be called as contemporary marriage act.If woman has no right to divorce her master,it is an enslavement(sex slave),how can you call *marriage* ?

3-What written in quran can not be the Creator' word or rules etc.,because;
A-Quran says *Mecca had been built by Abraham* How could it be possible?
I-Abraham had lived 38/39 centuries ago,
II-The oldest date of Mecca goes to 17 century ago.
B-Quran defines Trinity as Father,Son and Mary.
C-Quran says *Azar,dad of Abraham*,but his dad was Terah,not Azar(he was his servent).
D-Quran says Alexander the Great(Macedonian) or Darius(persian king who had lived 900 years before islam) was muslim.

Taylor's is a clear case of misinterpretation of the Qur'an for some selfish purpose. Certainly the Qur'an describes severe punishment for the people of Lut that indulged in gay sex. Similarly there is a standing instruction for the killing of any person or persons that engage in such distardly acts. Please endure to learn more of the Qur'an before making refrences to it.

Anaselghafari,

OK, so Abhab is trenchantly citing Qur'anic difficulties, in what is clearly attack-mode. Instead of refuting him, taking him on, winning the rest of us to your cause, you withdraw to some bogus high ground and opine that you won't debate his points unless he sincerely searches for God and acknowledges the sacrality of the Qur'an, i.e. becomes a Muslim!

I, for one, would like to read a learned Islamic reply to Abhab's contentions - but you imply that only INSIDERS can be privileged with such responses.

The prevailing tone of your post is overbearing and sanctimonious. You lay down imperatives of what other people MUST do, the hoops they must jump through before you will deign to ENGAGE. And correspondingly, the image of God you project is that of an inscrutable despot who demands abject obeisance. The epithets of Merciful and All Wise and the rest that are ascribed to him thereby appear as mere flattery, designed to mollify an ineffable, arbitrary tyrant. If God is really like that, hell has already begun.

If there is a God, and I - as a searching unbeliever - think there very well may be, who are YOU to limit its dealings with the world to your 7th century Arabian recital? You say that the Qur'an is the Word of God, yet you dismiss opportunities to show HOW.

Not all of us who post here are just trying to win arguments.

Dear Abhab,

Your questions can be further reframed to ask what's the difference between a marriage and a long-time adultry (co-habitation outside marriage). The simple and sufficient answer (to all your questions): one is allowed by God, the other is not.

This basic point here: We believe in God, the Creator. God's right and dominance over his creatures are absolute. God legislated in Torah, the Bible, and the Qura'an, and we don't transgress against what He legislates. To make obedience to God's laws dependent on Him convincing all of us, kind of negates the essence of worship.

The essential matter that you must consider and decide upon is not the minutua over marriage and how many wives, or the wisdom of forbidding usuary, or the reason why pork is disallowed..etc. The essential question that you need to make a sincere honest effort to decide upon is a two parter: 1) Is there a Creator, God who has the right to put down laws for humans and hold them accountable to these laws? 2) Is the Qura'an the word of God?

And, please don't try to answer them for the sake of wining an argument on a talkboard with someone you will probably never meet. Try to investigate them and answer them honestly, sincerely, for you own sake. Also: if you start to do it, leave your prejudices aside. God's law doesn't have to conform to your judgment on issues. This is where most relgious investigations go wrong: people look at the law (the effects) and say this doesn't seem nice to me. The question must be: is this from God or is it a fabrication.

Now, the essence of the test that God has thrust upon us (this life) is that these questions will never be conclusively resolved and proved one or another, not in this life. Either way one chooses to answer the questions, one is taking a leap of faith (when one says Qura'an isn't the word of God, one is also taking a giant leap of faith. how can that person be so sure how God chooses to convey his message). But, one must make a prejudice-free, sincere, honest investigation and decide these questions.

If God intends for one to find the truth of the matter, he/she will find it.

Maybe that got too preahy for your taste, but I find questions over minutia to be largely irrelavant; distractions from the actually relevant questions of what one believes about God. The questions over minutia only make sense when both parties have decided what they beleive about God and His word. If someone says he believes Qura'an is fabrication of Mohammad, then what would be the point of engaging in an argument over the problematic question of Pleasure Marriage and the evidence for it/against it in the Qura'an?

Anasel pontificates:
“ However, engaging in extra-marital sex IS prohibited by the Creator“.

Your holy book orders;
"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry [their mothers] that are lawful to you, two , three , four ; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly [with them], then only one, or those which your right hands possess."
(Quran4:3-4)

The above is according to Muslims the exact words of the Creator.
Accordingly how would you classify “those which your right hand possesses’ other than sex slaves? They are definitely not wives. How about the so-called Pleasure marriage, the Misiar, the Friend marriage the Urfi and all those other arrangements tolerated by the Muslim religious establishment . They are definitely not marriages even if some refer to them as such. I like to know how different are these innovations from outright prostitution.

Thanks GWYMER.

VERY, VERY intelligent, indeed, as you say, and VERY tolerant on the part of the gay man that you are.

All tolerant people should take example from you, no doubt.

What nonsense. As a gay man I certainly find it rather funny to find all these theologians, imams and rabbis running around trying to make their ancient and strange texts, held as holy by them, into a statement of politically correct hermeneutics. And I always love the morally irrelevant reference to scientific evidence that, basically, we just can't help it because our brains are fundamentally different from the straights. Please, just give it up and realize that truly intelligent people don't really care about what the clerical class thinks in their convoluting and irrational attempts to reconcile their metaphysical imaginings with the real world we are continually discovering and making for ourselves.

As a muslim, I found this article to be a great read. I would like to commend you, Pamela, for your courage and strong sense of justice. These are the sorts of debates that will open up over the next few generations as government controlled Islamic seminaries such as Al-Azhar lose their influence because of their pathetic subservience to corrupt authorities. Whether or not Pamela is right, it is MOST DEFINITELY a very important debate. The Qur'an passages quoted by some of the commenters in opposition to Pamela can be argued to be directed at homosexual relations that are not based on reciprocal love (aka marriage), but hedonistic gay sex (such as the bath-house sex of the 1970's). Such an interpretation seems to be consistent with the Qur'an's general message and the specific message of the relevant passages. Furthermore, even if the consensus always remains that homosexuality is forbidden by Islamic law, that does not mean that the sort of society most consistent with Islam would be one in which homosexuality is prohibited by society's laws. It may very well be the case that religious law may forbid something, but muslims SHOULD STILL support the rights of homosexual individuals because that is more consistent with Islamic principles (as opposed to oppressing those individuals, which is very un-Islamic). For those who are interested in one of the first articles to report structural differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, see "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men," S LeVay, Science, 1991. And there are a slew of articles, in many different organisms, that show a genetic component to sexual orientation and behavior.

And where are the usual anti-muslim message board trolls today? I think maybe this article fried their brains - sort of a "DOES NOT COMPUTE."

Bravo, Pamela, this is excellent. You are right that " ... it is radical to interpret these verses as providing a vision of human pairing that does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and that traditionalist Muslims would frown on such an interpretation."

I am myself a rather socially-conservative Muslim (though politically very liberal!), and I think that it is stretching it a little to interpret the verses as you do. But that interpretation does not do violence to the general spirit of the teachings of the Glorious Quran.

As you so eloquently say : "It remains a fact that the Qur'an is a living document, Islam is a living religion, and while there are those who would like to continue interpreting the Qur'an as it was interpreted five hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, I believe that the Qur'an must continually be understood in light of current information about human nature, race, gender, and class, and with reference to modern understandings of what is just, what is compassionate".

Continue with your courageous exegesis of the teachings of the Holy Quran and the narrative of the Life of The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and the ahaadith (his sayings and doings). And may Allah Subhaana-wata'aala bless you!

Atwan_05-- People are free to pursue their happiness any way they please however, they shall not expect their lifestyle of choices to receive acceptance by people whose faiths consider their choices to be an abomination and an affront to God. The position of Judaism, Christianity and Islam regarding engaging in homosexuality is absolute.
mightysparrow --Pamela Taylor might well be a kind compassionate person but her blog is not only a nontraditional view of homosexuality but is completely outside the extremes within Islam. Her attempt to use the Koran to justify homosexuality is just as futile as UBL trying the same with his terror. You cannot twist the meaning of the Koran to suit your agenda. Taylor’s conclusions appear to be an extension of her fictional writing devoid of Islamic Law.

Dear Ms.Taylor,

I am an Arab muslim. What I would like to say about your argument: it is outrageous. More importantly: it is wrong.

I believe you are twisting Islamic law to try to "fit" the law of God into whatever the social/cultural winds of the day dictate. Here is where that attempt goes wrong:

1) The point of Islam is that it is the legal code by which one must live. It dictates our obligations to the Creator, and delineates our obligations to each other. The obligations to God are the supreme obligations; other desires have to yield to God's law, not the other way around.

2) semantic games get you nowhere: By your method of "interpretation", you would also be able to say that the Qura'an doesn't prohibit a marriage between a man and a horse. Fact: Homosexual relations are *unambigiously* and strongly denounced by God (see, among others, Qura'an 27: 53-58), that to argue that God's law doesn't prohibit such relations is to be selectively blind.

3) The question of nature vs. choice is irrelevant in the context of obidenance to God's law: As far as I understand matters, what is prohibited is not being gay, but rather engaging in gay sex (analogously, a man's attraction to a woman who is not his wife is not -AFAIK- prohibited. However, engaging in extra-marital sex IS prohibited by the Creator). So, while one may or may not be able to control towards whom he feels attracted, one certainly has control over whether or not to act upon his desires in a manner that transgresses against God's law. This is the test.

I would beseech you, Pamela, not to take too many liberties with God's words; we will have to stand before the Creator on judgment day and -depending on what we have believed, SAID and done- be punished or rewarded. And I would advise you to read, with careful eyes and mind, the words of God in 3: 1-8

Best regards.

I'm sure this is right.
But is it Islam?

Ms. Taylor is a very compassionate and rational person. I would hope that people of all faiths would follow her example in shaping their religious beliefs and lives, but I am not holding my breath for it to happen! Many people are still very closed-minded about such things.

Thank you for the statement! Frankly, I'm not really concerned about what religions think about gay marriage. The government should not discriminate against it's taxpayers.

I think the world should not judge people whether they are staight, gay or bisexual. It is just a question of consent. They did it because they want it and no religion or beliefs should hinder peoples choices. As long as they are in their sound state of mind, why bother, it is just a question of love, so why fear about it. In the constitution itself, people are granted equal protection of law, as well as freedom and their pursuit of happiness.

Pursuit of happiness is paramount and no religion shall serve as impediment over peoples choices in life. The constitution itself does not recognize any religious affiliations and no religions shall move to hamper an individual freedom.

Neither shall norms and morals as their is no such thing as standard norms or morals.

Any move to stop it is anything that violates the pursuit of happiness clause in the constitution and is illegal. Love knows no religion and crosses bounderies.

Mono1 philosophizes thus:
“if muslims compromise their creed (QURAN and SUNNA )they are very apt to fall in the same hole people of the scripture falled in”
As if they had not yet! A person has to be blind in eye and heart not to realize the labyrinth of holes the followers of the Quran and Sunna are stuck in; the hole of ignorance, poverty, misery, violence, injustice, hatred, intolerance, slavery, sexism etc etc etc.
You and your ilk know that very well or why else would you and they you risk life and limb to get out of your failed societies to get to the shores of of the "people of the scriptures".

toward progressive values.

QURAN not only prohibte homosexuality but also put the cure for it and establish the solid socital ground ,the moral ground ,the psyche ground and the spirit ground from deviation in general.

when prophet mohamed(s) first came ,he said to the people ,say la ilaha ila allah you be succssful,

1-he started by correcting people creed .
2-he never compromised the right creed .
3-he never mixed right and wrong in order to plz the *majority* nor the *oppressed*, where right and wrong is decided by the creator of mankind .

previous nations(people of the scripture)when the scripture were revealed to them ,they said will accept this part and leave this part ,this part is nice and lean and that part is harsh and tough ,this caused them not only lose the scripture but lost in general where all kind of illness attacked their soul and psyche including liberalism and homosexuality and the rest of the mental and psychological illness people of the *free world* syndroms in general.

if muslims compromise their creed (QURAN and SUNNA )they are very apt to fall in the same hole people of the scripture falled in.

Dear Pamela K.Taylor,
Science Fiction/Creative Writer

How can we interprete 7.81,26.165-166,27.55-56 and 29.28-29 which strongly and clearly condemn Homosexuality ?
Islamic Republic of Iran executes/puts to death Gay ones,doesnt Islamic Republic know islamic rules ?

You say *modern science gives us a picture that is very much in keeping with the Qur'anic verses*
Would you please give/write any examples/samples ?
If Quran says so,Science should be very improved and advanced in islamic countries.
Could you please show any world-wide famous islamic universities,for example islamic M.I.T(Massachusetts where you grew up) or Harvard(where you got MTS from Divinity School) or Oxford ???

Dartmouth College,Motto *The Voice of one crying in desert*
Please,do you hear muslim women crying in Desert ?
Yes,Muslim Wake Up ! Are they still sleeping ?

I thank you to share your time to read my post.

Onofrio

Very rightly Sir, a person is known by the views he keeps.
Difference of opinion on controversal issues is a part of healthy dialouge but when someone makes a major departure from the agreed-upon matters, it cannot go un-noticed.
I cannot dare to call her a non-believer but her views on "women Imams" or gay marriage shows that she is trying to implant innovations for which most surely she do not have support from Quran or the traditions of the Prophet and she do not qualify.

Sorry, addressee typo...I meant ABHAB.

Abkab,

Just a few observations about your fresh, pearly, Qur'anic boys:

- There doesn't appear to be any clear statement that these "boys" are to be used for sexual gratification. There may be a homoerotic subtext, but that's inconclusive. Do we really have here an endorsement of gay sex for Muslims? Could be a long bow you're drawing there, Abhab.

- Does the original Arabic term, translated here as "boys", actually refer to pre-pubescents? (Can any Muslim adepts out there enlighten us on this: Pamela? Jamil? Tatler? Sidneyselt?) If these verses really are about sexual gratification (and that remains unproven, methinks), then they may be paedophilic rather than homosexual. These two categories should not be conflated - that's lazy, unfair, and inaccurate.

Comments?

Jamil,

Your posts demonstrate your heartfelt devotion to a rigorously defined, conservative Islamic faith. You clearly have a thorough knowledge of the Qur'an, hadith, etc. I imagine that your views would be shared by a broad mainstream of fellow Muslims.

About Pamela Taylor you write:

"There is bunch of new born "scholars"aka munafkeen like her who want to corrupt the teachings of Islam, but they will never succeed in their evil designs."

This is a strong allegation about Pamela's motives. You have shown quite clearly why you disagree with her interpretations of Islamic teaching - fair enough, you know Islam. But how do you justify your implication that she has actively "evil designs"? I can understand from your point of view that it may be misguided, foolish, and just plain wrongheaded for a Muslim to seek Qur'anic sanction for homosexuality. But that doesn't mean that the intention is "evil", or that she is consciously plotting to "corrupt" Islam. Surely, Jamil, being incorrect does not make someone diabolical!

So here's another annoying question from me, Jamil: in your learned view, is Pamela Taylor actually a Muslim, or is she among the unbelievers? Since Islam gives clear and comprehensive guidance on the essential issues of faith, you should be able to answer this directly.

Or will you will demur that "Allah alone knows"?

Momtotsan says:

“The Prophet's family were visited regularly by a gay man who was a personal friend,”
Moi:
I shall refer him to the link cited below for further clarification.
Excerpt:
“Homosexuality was and is widely practiced in Islamic countries. To please the homosexuals among his followers he(Mohammad) promised them pre-pubescent boys in Paradise. The relevant verses from the Koran are:
Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
Koran 56:17
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.
Koran 76:19
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.”

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html

Jamil, Jamil, Jamil,

Islam/koran has no foundation since its "rules" were transmitted by a mythical "pretty, wingie thingie". Perceptions of said koran are therefore mute on any scale.

Before commenting of the issue of gay marriage it is important to point out the difference of perceptions about the meaning of faith.The practicing muslim has one perception while the non-muslim perceive it differently. The result is that the ensuing arguments fails to achieve any understanding on any issue.

Here is how a bible scholar Dr.christine schirrmacher discribes the meaning of faith in Islam.
"Westerners often assume that the Moslem faith rests only on the obedience of strict rules and regulations but has no place for 'a living faith of the heart'
"In the Koran, the term 'faith' means 'to consider something to be sure and reliable' without doubting. Faith can only be given by God, and means above all, that a human being acknowledges Allah's greatness and superiority, his own position as God's servant, who owes Him gratitude for His mercy towards man
The majority of Moslem theologians teach that the Islamic faith is more than either a mental agreement with certain facts or a mechanical obedience of certain rules, but rather a person's dedication to God's will and the recognition of His sovereignty. This has consequences for his behavior in the family, in society and in the State.
Without question, the Islamic faith can not be described as a mere external membership to a religious group or as the theoretical agreement with particular dogmas.

Now let me briefly say that where clear guidance is available through Quran and traditions of the Prophet any innovation is un-called for.
Like christianity and judaism islam forbids gay sexual behaviour (see my ref fm Quran in other comments).
Subverted Islamic teachings cannot find any place in the Islamic society. Creating different meaning and spreading unknown comprehension of Islam is doom to fail, no matter how well planned and calculated these moves might be.

PAGANPLACE.

What do I want to do now? I already did it, played Willie Nelson's "You Were Always On My Mind" on my guitar, and tried to sing it like he does.

And right now, after posting this, I'll go back to Bob Dylan's lyric, "I can't even remember what it was I came here, to get away from."

Au Contraire dear Paganplace!!! Kisses and hugs all around for all you good witches out there (with permission by the way of my good wife).

Momtotsan,

Your erudition in your faith tradition is most impressive to this outsider. It's fascinating to glimpse your dialectic, unfolding at what I assume is the margins of Islam. I imagine Jamil and Tatler are more representative of the mainstream with which you contend. You're brave for staying in that stream, and striving in it. Part of me wonders why you bother. I see Christians doing the same thing in their traditions, arguing about what an ancient text actually does or does not permit, finding chinks that allow new persepctives and implications, and fine shades of inconclusivity. You must deeply love this difficult crag from which you fly.

Eh, Abhab, talk like that and monotheists just tend to choose 'God says I can have nine wives without even growing a social skill.'

Look at CCNL: wants the whole rest of the world to adhere to his ideas and I see no indication he ever *kissed* anyone.

People wanting *control* always think they're about perfect reason.

Spirit, I'd say, is under no such kinds of obligations.

Maybe that's why things you can't write rules about seem to result in so much darn violent indignance. :)

Daisy says:
“Equally important, the Prophet teaches us to want for our brothers and sisters what we want for ourselves.”

Why then he allowed Muslim men to marry four women, while allowed himself nine at one time, while limiting women only one man at most . Or why he allowed men to marry a Christian or Jew but denied that to Muslim women. Why is it when his son in law contemplated getting a co wife with Fatima , Mohammad’s daughter, he would not allow it. Do you call having one law for himself and another for his daughter and yet a third law for the rest of his followers “ wanting for his brothers and sisters what he wanted for himself?”

Again she assures us:
“modern science gives us a picture that is very much in keeping with the Qur'anic verses.”

Is alleging that the stars are closer to earth than the moon or that the sun sets in a murky well or meteors are missiles thrown by the angels to thwart the Jinn from listening to Allah’s council is in keeping with modern science? Or maybe that camel urine is a wonder drug that the American Chemical Society failed to recognize?

And, welll, hey. To any Muslims that don't like what Ms. Taylor has to say, well.

All's I can say about that is, look at the Fundie Christians... All this effort, and what have they *got?* If they can't freak out about gays, liberals, imaginary total cosmic conflicts with their Ipod-toting neighbors, and any notion the world's not going to end before their screwups catch up with them, well, they basically got no religion, do they?

I mean, to *some* of these people, their whole sense of their place in their universe revolves around the notion they 'don't approve of homosexuality.'

Does strange things to people.. And civilizations, if you asked me.

You don't want to end up like that. It's just sad, really.

CCNL

"And Pamela calls herself a Muslim??"

*You're* the one, Concerned Christian, who keeps demanding Muslims 'work out the flaws,' but you wouldn't know it if you saw it, would you?

"I disobeyed many of the commandments of our religion. I died and my soul was banished to your Earth. Not so bad, but my offenses were like your extreme mortal sin type. So, part of my punishment is having to read "On Faith," morning, noon and night. This particular day was very bad for me, very bad, indeed."

Well, to quote the 'Handbook for the Newly Deceased,' .... What do you want to do now?

Life on Mars was quite wonderful. On Mars there is only one nation and one religion, and everybody is a citizen of the nation and a firm believer in the religion.

I disobeyed many of the commandments of our religion. I died and my soul was banished to your Earth. Not so bad, but my offenses were like your extreme mortal sin type. So, part of my punishment is having to read "On Faith," morning, noon and night. This particular day was very bad for me, very bad, indeed.

Where does "On Faith" find such writers? Certainly not on Mars.

SIDNEYSELT-What is very clear is that you do not know what you are talking about, especially ,when it comes to discussing Islam whose morals are based on Judeo Christian values. Voters in over 30 States have rejected the homosexual lifestyle, not because Christians are bigots but because the Bible teaches them better. As far as Muslims are concerned according to Hadith "Whenever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”

MOMTOTSAN-Thank you for the clarification regarding your academic background so I am sure you are familiar with the Prophet saying "Whoever has intercourse with a woman and penetrates her rectum, or with a man, or with a boy, will appear on the Last Day stinking worse than a corpse; people will find him unbearable until he enters hell fire, and God will cancel all his good deeds"

God is Loving, Forgiving ,Merciful etc but God also uses His might against those who disobey God .

Scholars using the same sources can,within reason, reach somewhat differing conclusions however, your conclusions have no basis in Islamic sources.Even the most liberal of Scholars reject what you promote.

To Pamela

continued from part 1

The Qur’an also says: 'And Lot who said to his people: 'Do you do what is indecent though you see its iniquity? Would you really approach men in your lusts rather than women? You are a people grossly ignorant.' His people gave no answer but this: 'Drive out the followers of Lot from our city. They are indeed men who want to be clean and pure.' But we saved him and his family except his wife: We destined her to be of those who lagged behind. And We raked down on them a shower: and evil was the shower on those who were admonished.' (An-Naml: 54-58)

Then in surat Hud, we read: 'When our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless to protect them. He said: 'This is a distressful day.' His people came rushing towards him and they had been long in the habit of practicing abominations. He said: 'O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if you marry). Now fear God and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single tight-minded man?' They, however said: 'You know very well we have no need of your daughters. Indeed you know quite well what we want'. He said: 'Would that I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some powerful support'. (The angels) said: 'O Lot! We are messengers from your Lord! By no means shall they reach you. Now travel with your family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back; but your wife, to her will happen what will befall them. Morning is their appointed time. Is not the morning near'. When Our decree issued we turned the cities upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread layer on layer, marked from your Lord. Nor are they ever far from those who do wrong." (Hud 11: 77-83)

There is bunch of new born "scholars"aka munafkeen like her who want to corrupt the teachings of Islam, but they will never succeed in their evil designs.

Pamela

Here is abstract on this issue from Al-Azhar.

Gay marriage is totally prohibited in Islam as well as in all the divine religions. Gay marriage is an atrocious and obscene act which belongs to unsound nature. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, "Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not." (An-Nur: 19)

Responding to the question, Dr. Muhammad M. Abu Laylah, professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religions at Al-Azhar University, states the following:

"In the very beginning, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this act is an ugly sin which Allah forbids in all religions, even in the most primitive ones. It is against the ordinances of Allah and against the law of nature. I wonder how in this age of advanced knowledge, science, technology, we allow such things to take place in our human society, how someone allows or gives a legal sanction to such a widespread act that poses a threat to the whole human race and destroys our fabric of society like cancer."

In Quran, we read: 'The people of Lot rejected the messengers. Their brother Lot said to them: 'Will you not fear God? I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. so fear God and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for it. My reward is only from the Lord the of worlds. Of all the creatures of the world will you approach males, and leave those whom God has created for you as mates? Nay. You are people transgressing all limits.' They said: 'If you desist not O Lot, you will surely be cast out!'. He said: 'I do detest your doings. O my Lord! Deliver me and my family from such things as they do.' So we delivered him and his family, all except an old woman lingered behind. The rest we destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower; and evil was the shower on those who were admonished.' (Ash-Sh`ara': 160-173)

Modern science has also shown that the brains of gay men and women are different, structurally, from the brains of straight men and women. Other studies point to factors in the womb that affect sexual orientation. And many studies point to a genetic bases for homosexuality. Our experiences of gay couples show us that gays find the same love, mercy and tranquility with others of the same sex that the majority of us find in heterosexual pairings."

Pamela, if you or any of the commenters could send me links to studies that you mention here. It is my understanding that most of the research in this area is poor, or incomplete. Furthermore, most of this work ends up getting mixed in with politics and desires of the different groups that are looking for their own outcome. So if anyone knows of reputable studies that would be great. Thanks!

And Pamela calls herself a Muslim??

"Compassion",Cutting someones head off because they change religions is compassion? Killing over 3000 Americans because you don't like their lifestyle is compassion? Give me a break!! Enough of this political correctness crap.Islam is what it is....a religion of pure hate and violence.

Pamela K. Taylor

very shameful article by you. you are explaining something from Quran which is not there.
You do serve the same purpose which the munafkeen does.

Tatler, I disagree with your commentary as it lacks any "support" that you have asked of Pamela. It is clear to me that you prefer to be told what to think rather than reflect (tadabber) upon the facts at hand. It is apparent you can only read Quran from a heterosexual normative (heterosexuality is the norm for all human beings and homosexuals cannot read Quran and have a differing opinion on Allah's message to all of humankind). Of course, as you have demonstrated, anything that does not support your view on Quran and ahadith is therefore suspect or speculation. Rather than question Pamela's background on Islamic law, you should state you do not know Islamic history nor Islamic law.

To make my point more clear, are you aware Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, never spoke to the subject of homosexuality during his lifetime and never codified any ill-will or punishment for homosexuality(and Islamic legal scholars support this historical point)? Furthermore, the consensus to which you speak (1) occurred during the reign of Abu Bakr and the sahaba, and (2) the ahadith that supports Shari'ah's criminalization of homosexuality were designed by Islamic scholars and governmental leaders (all human beings). I note these events occurred after the death of Prophet Mohammed, so the Prophet was not "available" to state his position on homosexuality. Generally speaking, the majority of Muslims know neither the history of Islamic theological thought nor Islamic political history, and as a result remain dependent upon taqlid--an oral tradition based upon hearsay linked to Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, and recorded about 200 years after his death, even when such hearsay is dayyef (weak or non-existent). Talk about the blind leading the blind.

In my humble opinion, Pamela's duty as a Muslim is to question things where there is plenty of room for misunderstanding--since she has the right to question or seek knowledge where none may exist. On the other hand, Tatler, you submit to consensus from which you have no idea whether such statements are true or not--so who should I believe? Good thing I have studied and continue to study Quran and Shari'ah to know what I am talking about, how about you? When you get your historical facts together, get in touch and we can have a thorough discussion on these anti-homosexual rulings to which you speak.

Tatler -- I have a Master's of Theological Studies. My coursework was mostly in Qur'an, Hadith and Tafsir, although I had a few topical courses such as punishment in Islamic law, women in Islam, and Islamic philosophy. My independent research was a translation of Musnad Aishah, the earliest collation of hadith, which was written down by one of her students.

I have tried to make clear in this essay and in others where my opinions differ from traditionalist views. As for methodology, I try to adhere to the fundamental values that are repeated over and over in the Qur'an -- compassion, honesty, justice, making the world a more peaceful place, and always always always remembrance of God's Love.

It seems to me that many of the issues in the Muslim world stem from an obsession with God's punishment, but God tells us that His Mercy outweighs his Wrath. The Prophet's family were visited regularly by a gay man who was a personal friend, yet some of our nations imprison, torture and execute people simply for being gay. In this climate, some one needs to remind people that God's Love is preeminent, and we should strive to emulate that.

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

I am not sure of Pamela Taylor's theological qualifications to discuss this topic nor , given the the teachings of the Koran and Hadith how she reached her conclusions.

Unless Taylor is a scholar in Islamic law her opinion while may some feel good is not so much controversial as much as it is misleading and irrelevant as far as Islamic law is concered.Among Muslim scholars,of all schools and sects,there is consensus that the homosexual act is a sinful cursed abomination.

The standards of Muslim law, morals ,values and ethics cannot be corrupted accommodate what the Koran and Prophet Mohammad describe as sinful.

FTTSA -- traditionally the Lot story has been understood to refer to homosexuality, but I believe the story is not about being gay so much as expressing one's sexuality in unacceptable ways.

First and foremost, the men who came out of the town were clearly not in a marital relationship with the messengers, and had no intention to be. They were interested only in what we now call a one-night stand. The Qur'an is quite clear about extramarital sex being a sin, thus a priori their relationship with Lot's guests is out of bounds.

Second, there is an element of coercion. A couple of the passages that tell this story list "waylaying strangers" as part of their sin. The conversation makes it quite clear that the townsmen plan to have what they want whether or not the guests want to, and against Lot's will as well. Scott Kugle has written an essay elucidating this point of view, which you can find in Progressive Muslims, and is certainly worth the read.

Third, the men have abandoned their wives in order to come out and have their way with Lut's guests. The narration makes it clear that pretty much all the townsmen are participating in male to male sex (the entire town was destroyed, not just certain streets there of, or particular neighborhoods. Thus the townsmen were predominantly heterosexual men engaging in homosexual sex. Current analysis suggests that 6-10% of the population is gay. The remaining 90-94% of Sodom were thus acting contrary to their orientation.

We see a similar situation in Muhammad's time, when the men who were going out for battle asked Muhammad if they could satisfy their desires with one another since their wives mostly had stayed in the town. Muhammad told them not to do so. These were not gay guys doing what comes naturally to them, but straight guys making do with whatever was at hand. I believe this was the sin of Lot's people, not being gay, but acting gay when they weren't.

Finally, two of the narrations say that Lot's people did things that no people before them had ever done. While it's difficult to place Lot in history, best estimates place the story around 4000 to 3800 BCE. References to homosexual activity date as far back as 6000 BCE. The idea that the sin of Lot's people was not being gay, but rather acting contrary to their orientation makes more sense with the known history of humanity than the notion that they were the first gay people ever to walk the face of earth, which would directly contradict that history.

Pamela

Salaamu alaikum Pamela,

How would you interpret the story of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) in light of your position?

Pamela, as always you speak to Quranic truths which moves humankind forward. Thanks for your support for GLBTQ Muslims and the GLBTQ movement worldwide.

What a wonderful statement of the nature and role of a living, transformative document.

Your comment is applicable to a wide range of fundamental papers from the Old Testament to the U.S. Constitution.

This should be required reading in school classes from literature to civics to philosophy.

Ma'sh'Allah!

Wonderful statement, Pamela. Thank you so much!