Does legality mean validation?

[Badran]

I don't think it is a validation to their religion, it is just a way to know how many are they, and to distinguish them from Muslims. I think it is better than being labeled Muslims and their actions prove the contrary!

Yeah, i agree. Not to mention that its their right. Since we write people's religious choice in Id cards, that means all of them, not the ones we "approve" of.

Those are two different arguments, saying that Islamic Shari'a is the law of that country, then everyone should abide by it. When Shari'a gives non-Muslims the rights of practicing their beliefs, then you have no say after that, and that same Shari'a forbids sodomy and makes it punishable then every believer should abide by that. I'm sorry Badran, your opinion is irrelative when it comes to Shari'a and its rules. The society you're describing here is secular, not Islamic, as I see so far, you want everyone to do everything they wish even if it was contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

I should've clarified better in the OP my position about homosexual punishment and why i refuse it so that you could see where i'm coming from. First, you should know that i don't accept any hadith only because its considered by scholars to be authentic. The reason for that is because i find some of them contradictory to the Quran, and are illogical and i'll give examples (although its off topic, but there is no other way that you could see where i'm coming from). I don't accept stoning for example, first and most importantly, because of a logical problem. Being that such punishment, aside from how its unfitting to the supposed crime, its also worse than the punishment of a murderer. Some one who had sex with a woman who wasn't his wife, should be put on the floor and people gather around him, throwing stones at him, and he takes time until dying in this brutal, and unbelievably humiliating way. While a murder, is only killed? How so? Is an adulterer worse than a murderer? Of course not. And there is no explanation for this logical problem, and believe me i've looked for any explanation that makes sense, and there is simply none.

Secondly, the Quran says otherwise, and once again all the attempted explanations for this contradiction can only be described as pathetic. The least bad of the bad explanations, was that there was a verse and then removed (by god that is, naskh in other words). Well if it was removed, doesn't that mean its not applicable any more? yes it does. So for these reasons, and the fact that the Hadiths status is human work, which is prone to mistakes; accepting any hadith considered authentic, while disagreeing with it, and while contradicting with the Quran, is something i don't do.

The same goes for the supposed hadith that mentions killing homosexuals, which isn't even mentioned in Bukhari or Muslim. The Quran mentions homosexuality more than once, and not one single bit of an implication of any kind of punishment, oppression or any kind of interference from us.

The point relevant to the thread is, that since Islamic teachings are not laws, only some of them are, obviously not every rule will or should be enforced. Otherwise we should punish people who don't pray, or fast, or people who yell at their parents. There are personal things, and public things. The only angle left to argue for not allowing homosexuals legalized marriage, is to show that it hurts others, which doesn't happen and i've never heard a convincing argument for that. Or to say that our legalizing it means we're validating it, which i addressed in the OP.

If there were 4 witnesses of the act, why is it not punishable? May I know whose opinion is that? A scholar or just your own opinion?

If there are 4 witnesses to the actual sexual intercourse, thats a different story. As at least it could be argued then, that since public heterosexual sex display is punishable, this would be too. But even that is a mere conclusion.

As for the opinions i'm saying here, they are mine.

 

[Sajdah]

The same goes for the supposed hadith that mentions killing homosexuals, which isn't even mentioned in Bukhari or Muslim. The Quran mentions homosexuality more than once, and not one single bit of an implication of any kind of punishment, oppression or any kind of interference from us.

I understand your point now, just let's put the argument about Sahih Hadiths aside now (as it deserves its own thread), the case you presented here (ID cards..etc) is argued to have its references in the holy Qur'an, Allah(swt) says " And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve." [18:29]
So please, tell me where can we find in the holy Qur'an a verse as the above mentioned regarding homosexuality? Is there any verse makes sodomy accepted as "legal" in a healthy Islamic society? On the contrary Allah (swt) sent prophet Lut PBUH to his people who were practicing it, and guess what? he didn't say it is their personal matters, but rather he said as the it is mentioned in the holy Qur'an "And (remember) Lût (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinn)?" [7:80]
And at the end what happened to them when they refused to stop what they were doing? "And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimûn (criminals, polytheists and sinners)." [7:84] Qur'an...
You know we are in the same ship if one of us tried to make a hole in that ship, all of us without exception will be perished...So when we know that certain act is a sin, and doing it is wrong, we should all of us stand against it to rescue ourselves and to help others too, who might harm themselves without realizing the consequences.

 

[dust1n]

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

What, legal bread crumbs for the poor homos isn't enough for Mister Emotions over here?[/sarcasm]

 

[dust1n]

Badran: Can a non-Muslim proselytize in a true Sharia country?

Whether it was illegal or not to do so, they certainly could until forced otherwise.

 

[dust1n]

Laws change to reflect the changes already taken place in society.
Until a view becomes a majority one, there is no posability of changing the law.

What if the majority of people are even unaware of the law, say like any of the numerous bills that get passed through Congress? In fact, the president can pass executive order, at any time, with no balance of power and completely negating the majority's will, and they would have had to live with it until the next president elected willing to repeal the order.

 

[dust1n]

I was having a discussion some time ago with my family and some relatives, about other religious followers having their religion listed on ID cards here in Egypt. Some held the opinion that doing this would mean that we validate those other religions (aside from Judaism, christianity and Islam), and that we shouldn't do that. I thought that was nonsense and i kept arguing about that.

I realized later on that i use this same poor logic in other instances. Such as the case with homosexuals having the right to be married in an Islamic country. I believed that to do that, means we're validating something we view as wrong, and that an Islamic government naturally shouldn't do that. Anyway i'm realizing now that this logic isn't exactly accurate, as allowing others the legal right to activities that i personally don't agree with has nothing to do with wether or not i view it as right or wrong, or doesn't necessarily mean that i view it as right. I would like to know the opinions of Muslim members here about this, and others as well if you're interested in saying anything about this.

(Of course, in case any muslim is wondering, it goes without saying that in order for me to say this, i obviously don't agree with the opinion that homosexuals should be punished for having a relationship with their same sex).

Most often it is the opposite. Validation doesn't need to be supported by means of force, just accepted.
Invalid (in terms of the majority of humanity accepting something) Ethics are the ones that need to be enforced.

 

[Sahar]

Those are two different arguments, saying that Islamic Shari'a is the law of that country, then everyone should abide by it. When Shari'a gives non-Muslims the rights of practicing their beliefs, then you have no say after that, and that same Shari'a forbids sodomy and makes it punishable then every believer should abide by that. I'm sorry Badran, your opinion is irrelative when it comes to Shari'a and its rules. The society you're describing here is secular, not Islamic, as I see so far, you want everyone to do everything they wish even if it was contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

Well said, Sajdah. Who defines the rights? For us, it's Islamic Shari'a. Thus if homosexual marriage was a right according to it, who would we be to outlaw it?! but thank God it's not the case. We don't outlaw what we believe is a right. Islam and its Shari'a protect people's rights but the so called homosexual marriage is definitely not a right. It's also ironic that Badran said homosexual relationship would be punishable if witnessed but at the same time, homosexual marriage would be legal according to his argument. :sarcastic
I also agree with Terry when he said:

Laws change to reflect the changes already taken place in society.
Until a view becomes a majority one, there is no posability of changing the law.

 

[Badran]

I understand your point now, just let's put the argument about Sahih Hadiths aside now (as it deserves its own thread)

Sure, its a different topic.

the case you presented here (ID cards..etc) is argued to have its references in the holy Qur'an, Allah(swt) says " And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve." [18:29]
So please, tell me where can we find in the holy Qur'an a verse as the above mentioned regarding homosexuality? Is there any verse makes sodomy accepted as "legal" in a healthy Islamic society?

I understand what you're saying, but let me ask you a question. Is the default position to enforce people to do stuff mentioned in the Quran, unless it says not to? If this verse didn't exist, would you've enforced people to follow Islam, or at least you wouldn't in that case give them legal recognition?

For example, do you agree with rules such as prisoning people who don't fast, and some sort of punishment for people who are not at the mosque in the time of prayer? Or enforcement of hijab with the law? what i know is that not every one of those things is clarified in the Quran wether its supposed to be enforced on people, or that its a personal matter which shouldn't be enforced. But naturally since its not said that they should be enforced, and because they are obviously personal choices, they shouldn't be enforced. In other words, what i'm saying is in the Quran, god didn't say that we should stop people or punish them if they did this, and its clearly a personal matter, so its up to them. Its their right to choose what to do about it, and they will be judged based upon their choices. And since us making something legal doesn't necessarily mean we're validating it, why shouldn't we allow it in this case?

On the contrary Allah (swt) sent prophet Lut PBUH to his people who were practicing it, and guess what? he didn't say it is their personal matters, but rather he said as the it is mentioned in the holy Qur'an "And (remember) Lût (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinn)?" [7:80]

But that doesn't mean its not their personal business, prophets advised people about all sorts of things, including personal stuff. Just because he didn't say its their personal business, doesn't mean its not. Its the other way around. As for the how badly its described, somethings concerning beliefs for example are described even worse, yet the law in Islamic countries protect the rights of people to do them (I understand thats based on the verse you mentioned, and others. But i'm just pointing out that how badly an act is described doesn't mean at all that its not personal business).

And at the end what happened to them when they refused to stop what they were doing? "And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimûn (criminals, polytheists and sinners)." [7:84] Qur'an...

We can't say that God punished them like this because they slept with men. They did many bad things, some of which is worse than that, including refusing to believe Lot and threatening him. There is nothing on which we can conclude that if their only problem was sleeping with men, that God would've still punished them.

You know we are in the same ship if one of us tried to make a hole in that ship, all of us without exception will be perished...So when we know that certain act is a sin, and doing it is wrong, we should all of us stand against it to rescue ourselves and to help others too, who might harm themselves without realizing the consequences.

Yes sure i agree. And every type of thing that we consider bad should be dealt with according to its nature. Personal things, we have no right to interfere in anyway except advise. We have no right to enforce something on people in these matters, and in the end they will be judged on it. Otherwise like i said, we should interfere in anything that it isn't specified for us not to interfere with. Thats the whole problem with Islamic states today, this idea of religious police, which enforces things on people that god didn't say it should be, and its even obvious on its own that its personal matters.

 

[Badran]

It's also ironic that Badran said homosexual relationship would be punishable if witnessed but at the same time, homosexual marriage would be legal according to his argument. :sarcastic

Does the fact that you're not addressing this to me, mean that i shouldn't really respond to it? I mean you're merely sharing with Sajdah how ironic my argument is right?

Seeing that i'm the one making the argument, and there is no reason for you not to address this to me, and that i actually told you this earlier but you didn't respond to it, this isn't really for me right?

Also, is this the level of respect you want our "discussions" to have from now on?

 

[Sahar]

Does the fact that you're not addressing this to me, mean that i shouldn't really respond to it? I mean you're merely sharing with Sajdah how ironic my argument is right?

Seeing that i'm the one making the argument, and there is no reason for you not to address this to me, and that i actually told you this earlier but you didn't respond to it, this isn't really for me right?

Also, is this the level of respect you want our "discussions" to have from now on?

Badran, my statement was for everyone to read and reply to, and frankly I won't bother addressing you or replying to your posts in the future. It became really tiring and boring for every post I make that has anything to do with what you said, you speak to me in this way and take it in a sensitive and personal manner. Seriously you need to have some tougher skin, I am really sorry but I have no energy to go into discussions with someone whose feelings get hurt because I described his argument as "ironic" or didn't address him directly. We are supposed to be adults, not every time I speak to you or address your arguments; I have to tell you "nothing is personal, it's just a disagreement, I don't view badly...etc".
If you don't like my posts, stop responding to me. Simple.

 

[Father Heathen]

Legality and morality are two completely different things. There are many things I feel are "immoral", yet I still support the freedom to do such things (assuming such actions don't victimize the innocent). People should have right to do as they wish as long as they don't violate other people's rights in the process. It's silly to suggest that just because you don't approve of something others should be disallowed from doing it. That's tyranny, and I'm sure people wouldn't like if it the tables were turned and an aspect of their lives was deemed illegal just because someone else felt it was "immoral".

 

[Badran]

Badran, my statement was for everyone to read and reply to

Yet you didn't direct it to me, the one making the argument you're talking about, and i said it to you earlier, i even created the thread. That usually means you're not really saying this to me, but rather just basically sharing with others who share your opinion how ironic you find my argument.

and frankly I won't bother addressing you or replying to your posts in the future.

That would be best indeed. There doesn't seem to be a way for us to address each other respectfully.

It became really tiring and boring for every post I make that has anything to do with what you said, you speak to me in this way and take it in a sensitive and personal manner.

Yeah, i take it personal when someone shows disrespect or any needless attitude.

Seriously you need to have some tougher skin

Not really. But if we're giving advices to each other, you really need to lose some of your attitude.

I am really sorry but I have no energy to go into discussions with someone whose feelings get hurt because I described his argument as "ironic" or didn't address him directly.

Thats okay.

We are supposed to be adults, not every time I speak to you or address your arguments; I have to tell you "nothing is personal, it's just a disagreement, I don't view badly...etc".

Sure, except if you're being disrespectful, then one must expect a reaction to that. And yes, nothing is personal when discussing a topic, except of course when you make it personal, by making claims about me.

If you don't like my posts, stop responding to me. Simple.

As long as they're not addressing me, or talking about me, i won't.

 

[Bismillah]

Badran, please answer me this question.

If you were the leader of a Shariah country and permitted homosexuality as well as homosexual marriages that would be explicit endorsement correct?

How would you defend yourself when judged for allowing homosexuality to spread through a Muslim country and to encourage it as something good or tolerable?

In my view a true Muslim country would discourage homosexuality and strive for a healthier community.

 

[Badran]

Badran, please answer me this question.

Of course, just one thing i should tell you. Your next statement that is in the next quote, is exactly how i viewed this just recently. So, just saying that i completely understand where you're coming from, and what you're saying.

If you were the leader of a Shariah country and permitted homosexuality as well as homosexual marriages that would be explicit endorsement correct?

Thats what this entire thread is about, and what i'm trying to say. That making something legal, is not necessarily equal to endorsement, or validation. Not any more validating than making being a different religious follower, worshiping a different god, and not abiding by Islamic teachings to be legal. Its protected by the law actually. We're required to protect a certain religious follower right to worship a different god. Why? Because giving him this obvious and unquestionable right, does not mean we agree with him. Why would god order us to do that in the Quran, if making something legal, and protecting the rights of others to do stuff contradictory to what he said is actually validating or endorsing it? Simple, because its not. When i allow a Buddhist to have Buddhism written on his ID card, and protect his right to practice it, does not mean i agree or endorse his choice.

How would you defend yourself when judged for allowing homosexuality to spread through a Muslim country and to encourage it as something good or tolerable?

I'm hoping that the first part made it clear, however i'll add a few points:

1) Homosexuals are already homosexuals, they're not waiting for us to make it legal for them to be so, they already are, and as you might know Islam doesn't say that being a homosexual is wrong, or being attracted to your same is wrong, only fulfilling this desire.

2) They already fulfill that desire. Or in other words their choice to fulfill it or not is not directly related to them being granted legal recognition or not, as is the case with many other things.

3) Like i said, making it legal does not in anyway mean i'm saying its something good, or encouraging it.

In my view a true Muslim country would discourage homosexuality and strive for a healthier community.

Of course, and discouraging behavior we disagree with, and striving for a better community doesn't mean using the law to do that. There are means suitable for each purpose. That doesn't come through the law, it comes through advocating those values, and trying to remind people what their religion says regarding a certain subject. And that is the job of scholars, and the community as a whole to advocate these ideas, not to enforce our morals regardless of people's rights.

In other words, striving for a better community or discouraging things we consider bad is not at all restricted to the law.

 

[Father Heathen]

Badran, please answer me this question.

If you were the leader of a Shariah country and permitted homosexuality as well as homosexual marriages that would be explicit endorsement correct?

How would you defend yourself when judged for allowing homosexuality to spread through a Muslim country and to encourage it as something good or tolerable?

In my view a true Muslim country would discourage homosexuality and strive for a healthier community.

Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. And you don't necessarily have to disallow something just because you disapprove of it. An as example I've used before, I dislike your religion, yet I still support your right to believe and practice it. Can you grasp that?

 

[Sajdah]

Is the default position to enforce people to do stuff mentioned in the Quran, unless it says not to?

May I ask you, how do you understand the most repeated demand by Muslims "a country governed by Islamic Shari'a"?

If this verse didn't exist, would you've enforced people to follow Islam, or at least you wouldn't in that case give them legal recognition?

If there had been no Islamic rule to give them that right, I wouldn't have accepted that legal recognition!
Now please, answer my question, is there any verse gives homosexuals any legal right concerning marriage?

For example, do you agree with rules such as prisoning people who don't fast...

No.

and some sort of punishment for people who are not at the mosque in the time of prayer?

No.

Or enforcement of hijab with the law?

No.

In other words, what i'm saying is in the Quran, god didn't say that we should stop people or punish them if they did this, and its clearly a personal matter, so its up to them.

Certainly, it is personal choice whether to obey Allah or not. But this should've happened before proclaiming Shahada, before submitting to Allah, and accepting His rules and guidance. One can not take from Islam what goes with his desires, and rejects what doesn't. Every part of Islam is related to the other, so we can not pick up things like Shahad, and good manners for instance, and leave other important things like prayers, fasting, Hijab....etc.

And since us making something legal doesn't necessarily mean we're validating it, why shouldn't we allow it in this case?

Okay, just tell me... Do you think that those who don't pray are equal to those who practice homosexuality?

We can't say that God punished them like this because they slept with men. They did many bad things, some of which is worse than that, including refusing to believe Lot and threatening him. There is nothing on which we can conclude that if their only problem was sleeping with men, that God would've still punished them.

Everywhere in the Qur'an when Lut's people are mentioned that act is related to them, so if that sin had nothing to do with the punishment on them, as you say, why is it mentioned in the holy Qur'an and always related to Lut's people?

Please, read and think about those verses from Surah 26 very well:

[160] The propel of Lût (Lot) (-who dwelt in the town of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers.
[161] When their brother Lût (Lot) said to them: "Will you not fear Allâh and obey Him?
[162] "Verily I am a trustworthy Messenger to you.
[163] "So fear Allâh, keep your duty to Him, and obey me.
[164] "No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islâmic Monotheism); my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
[165] "Go you in unto the males of the 'Alamîn (mankind),
[166] "And leave those whom Allâh has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!"
[167] They said: "If you cease not O Lût (Lot)! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!"
[168] He said: "I am, indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy).
[169] "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do."
[170] So We saved him and his family, all,
[171] Except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind.
[172] Then afterward We destroyed the others.
[173] And We rained on them a rain (of torment). And how evil was the rain of those who had been warned.
[174] Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers.

Yes sure i agree. And every type of thing that we consider bad should be dealt with according to its nature. Personal things, we have no right to interfere in anyway except advise. We have no right to enforce something on people in these matters, and in the end they will be judged on it.

Well, let's assume that you know a homosexual Muslim who needs your advice, tell us what would you tell him?! Would you tell him I'm with the legality of homosexual marriage, but it is a bad thing you shouldn't do? You know it is just like you are giving a child matches and telling him don't play with matches, they will burn you!!

Otherwise like i said, we should interfere in anything that it isn't specified for us not to interfere with.

Excuse me, who has the right to specify what an Islamic government should interfere in or should not?

I hope you are not debating for the sake of debate... As I don't like that sort of debates with Muslims....

 

[Sajdah]

..... Badran said homosexual relationship would be punishable if witnessed but at the same time, homosexual marriage would be legal according to his argument.

That is a good point, I would like to know Badran's comment on it!

 

[Smoke]

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

No doubt. There is not, however, a better way for gay people to have legal marriages, which is really the issue. I don't expect to live to see the day when people like yourself will regard gay people as equals, and I can't think of anything less rewarding or pointless than trying to persuade such people to "validate" me.

In fact, I think I'm sufficiently valid in my own right, and in no need of any validation whatsoever, especially from people who, in the first place, seem ill-equipped to supply any validation that would be meaningful to me.

 

[Badran]

May I ask you, how do you understand the most repeated demand by Muslims "a country governed by Islamic Shari'a"?

I think it varies. I realize of course that what i'm talking about however is not the common idea. I would like to understand your idea more, and i'll ask you in this post to try to understand more.

If there had been no Islamic rule to give them that right, I wouldn't have accepted that legal recognition!
Now please, answer my question, is there any verse gives homosexuals any legal right concerning marriage?

Of course there aren't any. However what i'm trying to argue is that the fact that its not explicitly said to allow people to do something, does not mean we shouldn't. I'll clarify more on that, but as soon as i understand something.

No.

No.

No.

Can i ask why you don't agree with those rulings?

(Just trying to understand your opinion more).

Certainly, it is personal choice whether to obey Allah or not. But this should've happened before proclaiming Shahada, before submitting to Allah, and accepting His rules and guidance. One can not take from Islam what goes with his desires, and rejects what doesn't. Every part of Islam is related to the other, so we can not pick up things like Shahad, and good manners for instance, and leave other important things like prayers, fasting, Hijab....etc.

If you mean that Muslims shouldn't accept parts and refuse parts based on what they like or not, then of course, that goes against the very principle. However, in the end thats up to them, and that is what they'll be judged on.

Okay, just tell me... Do you think that those who don't pray are equal to those who practice homosexuality?

In terms of amount of sins, or which is worse i couldn't really say for sure if its equal or not, i'm more inclined that not praying is worse though. But i view them in the same category. Meaning that they are both considered very bad, and i look at both of them as something personal between the person and God.

Everywhere in the Qur'an when Lut's people are mentioned that act is related to them, so if that sin had nothing to do with the punishment on them, as you say, why is it mentioned in the holy Qur'an and always related to Lut's people?

Please, read and think about those verses from Surah 26 very well:

[160] The propel of Lût (Lot) (-who dwelt in the town of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers.
[161] When their brother Lût (Lot) said to them: "Will you not fear Allâh and obey Him?
[162] "Verily I am a trustworthy Messenger to you.
[163] "So fear Allâh, keep your duty to Him, and obey me.
[164] "No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islâmic Monotheism); my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
[165] "Go you in unto the males of the 'Alamîn (mankind),
[166] "And leave those whom Allâh has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!"
[167] They said: "If you cease not O Lût (Lot)! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!"
[168] He said: "I am, indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy).
[169] "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do."
[170] So We saved him and his family, all,
[171] Except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind.
[172] Then afterward We destroyed the others.
[173] And We rained on them a rain (of torment). And how evil was the rain of those who had been warned.
[174] Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say, or imply its unrelated. I said we can't conclude that this is why they were punished. Or in other words that if it were their only sin, that god would've still punished them. The fact is, they did many things which are considered bad in Islam, some of which are considered much worse than homosexual sex in Islam. They were punished for their sins.

I hope this makes it clear what i meant. Would you agree with this?

If it makes any difference, this particular part about Lot is not just my personal opinion. It is also said in El Sharawy (الشعراو&#1609 books of stories of the prophets.

Well, let's assume that you know a homosexual Muslim who needs your advice, tell us what would you tell him?! Would you tell him I'm with the legality of homosexual marriage, but it is a bad thing you shouldn't do?

What i would tell him would not be any different from what i would tell a friend who for example doesn't believe in god, in the fact that the legal part will not be brought up in the conversation. It has nothing to do with it. His right is already a given, i will only be talking about his choice of wether or not to do it based on his own decision.

I am with the legal right for him to choose to believe or not, and whatever religion he follows etc.. That however doesn't mean i can't talk to him about his decision.

You know it is just like you are giving a child matches and telling him don't play with matches, they will burn you!!

But you're assuming that the mere fact the its legal, means the homosexuals will all choose based on that to marry and have a relationship, as if they were children. These decisions have already been made, and are being made every day without the legal recognition. There are some who already live with a partner and consider them as a husband or a wife. Regardless of wether or not the government will recognize such relationship. Others choose not to, and wether it becomes legal or not will not change their decisions.

Excuse me, who has the right to specify what an Islamic government should interfere in or should not?

Muslims. As for the realistic answer, being that usually countries contain people from different religions, the answer would be people in general. Islamic government should be established in countries containing a majority of muslims, based on the fact that they are a majority, and their opinions count of course. But do you view it in the sense of certain religious figures having authority, completely disregarding people's opinions?

I hope you are not debating for the sake of debate... As I don't like that sort of debates with Muslims....

No, i'm not. Actually this is very serious, and i'm hoping to reach any positive conclusion from this.

That is a good point, I would like to know Badran's comment on it!

What i said is, that it could be concluded that public sexual display, homosexual one, would be punished too. That however, doesn't mean that homosexual sex in itself is illegal.

 

[Muffled]

I was having a discussion some time ago with my family and some relatives, about other religious followers having their religion listed on ID cards here in Egypt. Some held the opinion that doing this would mean that we validate those other religions (aside from Judaism, christianity and Islam), and that we shouldn't do that. I thought that was nonsense and i kept arguing about that.

I realized later on that i use this same poor logic in other instances. Such as the case with homosexuals having the right to be married in an Islamic country. I believed that to do that, means we're validating something we view as wrong, and that an Islamic government naturally shouldn't do that. Anyway i'm realizing now that this logic isn't exactly accurate, as allowing others the legal right to activities that i personally don't agree with has nothing to do with wether or not i view it as right or wrong, or doesn't necessarily mean that i view it as right. I would like to know the opinions of Muslim members here about this, and others as well if you're interested in saying anything about this.

(Of course, in case any muslim is wondering, it goes without saying that in order for me to say this, i obviously don't agree with the opinion that homosexuals should be punished for having a relationship with their same sex).

I don't see how identification could be construed as validation. I wouldn't have any problem with the US government or a more local state putting the term homosexual on a person's ID if he wanted it. However all too often such identification provides an opportunity for discrimination and I don't believe that is justified. It could be considered aknowledgement that such people exist.

This is not the same situation. For a state to regulate marriage, it has to acknowledge marriage as a valid state. For a state to regulate marriage of homosexuals it has to acknowledge homosexuality as a valid state. I don't believe a Muslim, Jew or Christian can do that.

Any sinful state may be punished. A person can be punished for lieing. What the courts have declared in this country is that it is too intrusive to go into a person's bedroom to see if they are committing a sexual sin. However it is my opinion that anything done in public should be punished appropriately.