Does legality mean validation?

[Muffled]

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.

That is right. You can just validate yourself and tell God to go to Hell.

 

[Sahar]

That is a good point...

The thing is the hadd punishment that is specified in Islam is for the relationship that is outside marriage (of course Islam doesn't acknowledge any marriage except between a man and a woman)...thus I never heard that after making a "heterosexual marriage" legal, we punish the couple by the hadd penalty if their relationship was witnessed. Al-Hadd is for adultery and homosexual relationship is included. Also, if we agreed on the legality of "homosexual marriage", would we also agree on "a group marriage", "incestuous marriage", where would be the limit?
That's why there is no confusion in Islam. Islamic Shari'a defined what is haram and halal, which is the source of legislation of the Islamic country.

 

[Smoke]

That is right. You can just validate yourself and tell God to go to Hell.

Figuratively speaking. In particular, your God and all gods which are the products of disordered imaginations can "go to hell."

 

[dust1n]

That is right. You can just validate yourself and tell God to go to Hell.

God can't go to hell. Hell is separation from the Lord. If he goes to hell, it ceases to be hell.

 

[Father Heathen]

That is right. You can just validate yourself and tell God to go to Hell.

Telling god to go to hell and telling your laughable perception and portrayal of god to go to hell are two completely separate things. You self-appointed spokesmen flatter yourselves.

 

[Badran]

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.

Yes, i agree. And i assume you of course agree with the state for example protecting people's rights in choice and practice of religion, right?

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.

For the part where you said that the state would have to acknowledge homosexuality itself as valid, do you mean acknowledging the statues of being a homosexual, or having sex with your same sex as valid? If the second, i certainly understand why we can't and shouldn't do that.

However, acknowledging something as valid or good is not a necessity when legalizing anything, and isn't at all always the case. Can you explain why is it validation in this case particularly?

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.

I don't agree that any sinful state may be punished, unless you're excluding somethings and didn't say because its obvious. But if you mean literally anything, i can't see how. Do you think one should be punished by the community for not going to church or the mosque for example? There are lots of stuff that is between the person and god, where the community have no business enforcing anything.

There aren't any arguments that i'm aware of, that makes homosexual sex between two people any body's business to interfere, punish or not grant them things that i can't see any reason for not giving to them in the first place. Except based on this concept that we would be validating it, which doesn't apply in other instances.

 

[Sajdah]

I think it varies.

Well, I would like to know your own view about it, or rather I would like to know your understanding of the meaning of "Islamic Shari'a"....

I realize of course that what i'm talking about however is not the common idea.

Alhamdulillah!

Of course there aren't any.

Solved, from where have you brought this "thought" then? How could a country applies Islamic Shari'a in every aspect accept to make such terrible decision without backing it up from the sources of legislation?

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.

We are talking about making an awful sin legal in an Islamic country, so it is not a simple issue as you are trying to simplify it. You know your argument would have been valid in case there had been nothing in Qur'an condemns that act, and clearly it is not the case here.

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

Simply because there are more effective ways to make Muslims closer to Allah. Performing prayers and the other things you mentioned should come from within so as to be done correctly. Allah says "And enjoin As-Salât (the prayer) on your family, and be patient in offering them (i.e. the Salât (prayers)).....[20:132] and prophet Muhammed PBUH is a good example to be followed...So we should know how he was enjoining the prayer on his family and accordingly do as he did...

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.

Good, but why are we discussing that topic then? I mean you are defending a point which has no root in our religion, it is a point build on the whims and desires of some people who want to validate it by any means. (I'm not talking about you, in fact I just finished reading a very weird article on that matter)...

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.

Okay, let's assume that they are equal (although it is unfair to compare a Muslim who might be lazy, or ignorant about the importance of prayer, to someone who clearly insists on the deviation from nature)....In one hand if homosexuality was legalized, it would mean that it is no more personal (between the individual and God), it became clearly a public matter. On the other hand people might be living at the same home, and one of them didn't fast the whole month of Ramadan, and his parents know nothing about it. The same thing goes with prayer, as the state will not keep watching millions of people to know whether they go to pray or not. So we can say it is between the individual and Allah....

Or in other words that if it were their only sin, that god would've still punished them.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ لِيُهْلِكَ الْقُرَىٰ بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا مُصْلِحُونَ ​

"And your Lord would never destroy the towns wrongfully, while their people were right-doers." [11:117]

In some of the books of Tafseer the word "Dhulm", means "Kufr" or disbelief... So no, if it had been their only sin (and I don't understand how would believers obey Allah and believe in Him, but at the same time insist on such terrible sin? Honestly is it reasonable?) they would have been punished, because they spread mischief on earth and they didn't fully submitted to Allah, they just pick up what they like, and make a rebellion towards Allah in what they don't!

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.

I respect Sheikh El-Shaarawy so much, may Allah have mercy on him...But I've not heard of this saying before...Anyway I'll listen to it later insha'Allah from his (khawater)...

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.

At least they know that they are criminals, and what they are doing is an awful crime in that country, which by no means can be legal. Or socially accepted, as they realize very well that such relation is condemned by everybody.....

... But do you view it in the sense of certain religious figures having authority, completely disregarding people's opinions?

No, I view it as people has chose to be ruled by Islamic Shari'a which means that they accept the laws given by Allah as constitutional principles shouldn't be violated....

 

[Sajdah]

The thing is the hadd punishment that is specified in Islam is for the relationship that is outside marriage (of course Islam doesn't acknowledge any marriage except between a man and a woman)...thus I never heard that after making a "heterosexual marriage" legal, we punish the couple by the hadd penalty if their relationship was witnessed. Al-Hadd is for adultery and homosexual relationship is included .

Very well said, that's exactly what I'm thinking of too, but you said it better

So, may I know your views on what Not4me said, Badran!

Also, if we agreed on the legality of "homosexual marriage", would we also agree on "a group marriage", "incestuous marriage", where would be the limit?

There would be no limit for that so called personal matters as far as people are following their desires only regardless of the harm they cause to themselves and to others...

That's why there is no confusion in Islam. Islamic Shari'a defined what is haram and halal, which is the source of legislation of the Islamic country.

Exactly!

 

[Sahar]

Simply because there are more effective ways to make Muslims closer to Allah. Performing prayers and the other things you mentioned should come from within so as to be done correctly. Allah says "And enjoin As-Salât (the prayer) on your family, and be patient in offering them (i.e. the Salât (prayers)).....[20:132] and prophet Muhammed PBUH is a good example to be followed...So we should know how he was enjoining the prayer on his family and accordingly do as he did...

I didn't hear that our good salaf and companions issued a punishment law for those who don't fast or pray. Our salaf is our example. We also never heard that they legalized the so called "homosexual marriage". Also, marriage between a Muslim woman and a non Muslim man is illegal and the same for that between a Muslim man and non believer woman because it would constitute an adulterous relationship and Islam doesn't acknowledge its validity or legality just for the fact that it's a forbidden relationship. It's outlawed even before any intimacy happens. So the idea is that the haram sexual relationship itself is the problem. The Qur'an required the witnesses to protect people's privacy (we won't put hidden cameras in their bedrooms) and to prevent any slander against innocent people. And if the problem was the public sex, so why wasn't the hadd for any witnessed sex including that between a husband and a wife?

 

[Sahar]

Alhamdulillah!

Hahaha

In one hand if homosexuality was legalized, it would mean that it is no more personal (between the individual and God), it became clearly a public matter.

That is indeed correct. Islam closes the door for any encouragement or attempts to encourage and promote illicit sexual relations, not to mention legalizing it. If the Muslim society didn't fight against indecency even by the means of the Law, then they should expect Allah's wrath. It's a very dangerous issue.

 

[Sunstone]

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 profoundly agree with you Badran. Please allow me to illustrate with with the example of a heterosexual couple who want to get married.

Suppose you knew the heterosexual couple and decided that they were not suited to each other on the grounds their personalities were incompatible. Should you still support their legal right to get married even though you now personally object to their marriage?

Of course you should support their legal right to get married! Your objection to their marriage on personal grounds has nothing to do with their legal rights.

In much the same manner you might support the legal right of a homosexual couple to get married while opposing their marriage on other grounds.

 

[LuisDantas]

God can't go to hell. Hell is separation from the Lord. If he goes to hell, it ceases to be hell.

I know that you are kidding, but this statement of yours is fairly deep all the same. There are some, myself included, who believe that to sort of be the point of religion. Not so much "finding God" as transmuting hell into something non-hellish.

 

[Badran]

Well, I would like to know your own view about it, or rather I would like to know your understanding of the meaning of "Islamic Shari'a"....

I view it in the sense that, as Islam is a religion that also has rules for the community, not living by it would be hypocritical and would be against what our religion teaches. However, i'm also aware that people's opinions differ, people's preception of what Islam says differ, and nobody has authority over the subject. So, in the end, it is all dependant on people. The day an Islamic government is installed, should be based on the fact that the people want it. That government will have some core principles of course that people accept, but a lot will be up for arguments and people's choices.

Solved, from where have you brought this "thought" then? How could a country applies Islamic Shari'a in every aspect accept to make such terrible decision without backing it up from the sources of legislation?

Like i said because i'm arguing that we don't need a spelled out order in every thing that we shouldn't interfere in, its the other way around. There is nothing that says that we should interfere. They want a legal contract that preserves their rights etc... and there is nothing that says otherwise, and us giving them that, doesn't mean we approve of what they're doing.

We are talking about making an awful sin legal in an Islamic country, so it is not a simple issue as you are trying to simplify it. You know your argument would have been valid in case there had been nothing in Qur'an condemns that act, and clearly it is not the case here.

I'm not saying its a simple matter, but i think we're making it too complicated, more than it is.

Simply because there are more effective ways to make Muslims closer to Allah. Performing prayers and the other things you mentioned should come from within so as to be done correctly. Allah says "And enjoin As-Salât (the prayer) on your family, and be patient in offering them (i.e. the Salât (prayers)).....[20:132] and prophet Muhammed PBUH is a good example to be followed...So we should know how he was enjoining the prayer on his family and accordingly do as he did...

Okay. (I agree of course with that)

Does that mean that you wouldn't agree with those rules because there are better ways, but that you wouldn't view it as wrong if applied? Or do you view it as wrong to enforce such things? Or in other words, would you view a country enforcing hijab on women as oppressors?

If you view it as wrong, would it be because such enforcement is not mentioned in Islam?

Good, but why are we discussing that topic then?

Because of the sentence i said right after the one you quoted. Being that it is up to them.

I mean you are defending a point which has no root in our religion, it is a point build on the whims and desires of some people who want to validate it by any means. (I'm not talking about you, in fact I just finished reading a very weird article on that matter)...

The reason i'm defending this point is because there is nothing that says that we should be doing this, neither arguments, or any teaching in Islam. The basic or default position is that people can do what they want, unless there is a reason for us to interfere. What qualifies as reasons for us muslims, would be an order in the religion, or an argument that proves that a certain act is hurting other people. Which neither is available in this case.

Okay, let's assume that they are equal (although it is unfair to compare a Muslim who might be lazy, or ignorant about the importance of prayer, to someone who clearly insists on the deviation from nature)

Well, its unfair now, but only because of the way you've put it. I mean you have given excuses for the one who doesn't pray as being ignorant or lazy, while the one that has homosexual sex, is "insisting on deviating from nature".

In one hand if homosexuality was legalized, it would mean that it is no more personal (between the individual and God), it became clearly a public matter. On the other hand people might be living at the same home, and one of them didn't fast the whole month of Ramadan, and his parents know nothing about it. The same thing goes with prayer, as the state will not keep watching millions of people to know whether they go to pray or not. So we can say it is between the individual and Allah....

Once again you're giving special exuses for other things. What if the parents find out their son isn't fasting or praying, should they report him? Its not a question of knowing, the fact that you know someone is doing somehting does not mean its your buisness now. Its your buisness if its hurting somebody else. In that case you must interfer. But as long as its something that is up to the person doing it, you knowing or not doesn't change things. It only means you should advise them about it.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ لِيُهْلِكَ الْقُرَىٰ بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا مُصْلِحُونَ ​

"And your Lord would never destroy the towns wrongfully, while their people were right-doers." [11:117]

In some of the books of Tafseer the word "Dhulm", means "Kufr" or disbelief... So no, if it had been their only sin (and I don't understand how would believers obey Allah and believe in Him, but at the same time insist on such terrible sin? Honestly is it reasonable?) they would have been punished, because they spread mischief on earth and they didn't fully submitted to Allah, they just pick up what they like, and make a rebellion towards Allah in what they don't!

Lets clarify something, we're talking about alternate reality, something that didn't happen. We're talking about what God would've done, so i don't think neither of us should be sure about what god would've or wouldn't have done. Also, you're attaching certain attributes with homosexuals that in fact are not at all a necessity. By that i mean you say "rebellion" and "spread mischief", i said nothing about such things. I said if their only sin was having homosexual sex, which does not mean in its own that one is rebelling against god, or spreading mischief in any way. Not anymore than anybody else who is not following gods commands in other things, which we all do. None of us is perfect.

I respect Sheikh El-Shaarawy so much, may Allah have mercy on him...But I've not heard of this saying before...Anyway I'll listen to it later insha'Allah from his (khawater)...

I respect him a lot too, he is my favorite actually.

At least they know that they are criminals, and what they are doing is an awful crime in that country, which by no means can be legal. Or socially accepted, as they realize very well that such relation is condemned by everybody.....

The mere fact that a government makes something illegal, does not mean that people who do that thing are criminals, because sometimes the rule enforced is wrong. Anyway, my point was that if it became legal, that wouldn't result in all of them marrying like children who were waiting for approval from their parents.

As for the part about homosexual punishment. I didn't say married couples are applicable for that punishment. I actually clarified earlier that i'm talking about heterosexual sex "not in the proper frame". As for homosexuality being included, i also clarified earlier that i don't accept that, because of the part about Hadiths. So, my position from my point view, is that Islam has not prescribed any punishment for it. Which led me to the conclusion that at least in the case of it being public sex, it could be concluded that it would be punished too. If this conclusion results in contradictions however, then my position would be that it would be dealt with as its own case, with putting other things into consideration. As nothing is prescribed for it.

 

[dust1n]

I know that you are kidding, but this statement of yours is fairly deep all the same. There are some, myself included, who believe that to sort of be the point of religion. Not so much "finding God" as transmuting hell into something non-hellish.

It makes you wonder how omniscience God really is.

 

[Sajdah]

The day an Islamic government is installed, should be based on the fact that the people want it.

Agreed!

That government will have some core principles of course that people accept, but a lot will be up for arguments and people's choices.

And when it comes to legeslations and rules, like the one at hand, from where should we bring the legislations, from people too, or from the source of legislations which is Islamic Shari'a?

If you view it as wrong, would it be because such enforcement is not mentioned in Islam?

Yes.

Well, its unfair now, but only because of the way you've put it. I mean you have given excuses for the one who doesn't pray as being ignorant or lazy, while the one that has homosexual sex, is "insisting on deviating from nature".

Because I know no excuses for homosexuals to rudely ask for a "legal right" to commit that sin...Prophet Muhammed PBUH said "Every member of my nation will be forgiven, ecept those who epose their wrongdoings." Just for exposing it, let alone aking for "legal right"!!!!!

The reason i'm defending this point is because there is nothing that says that we should be doing this, neither arguments, or any teaching in Islam.

How so? Didn't you just said that Lut's peoples were punished for many sins including homosexuality? Then according to that homosexuality is condemend in Qur'an, and no Islamic government should legalize something which is clearly condemned by Allah.

What qualifies as reasons for us muslims, would be an order in the religion, or an argument that proves that a certain act is hurting other people. Which neither is available in this case.

Again, you are assuming things, and building conclusions on mere "assumptions", not facts. And the fact is that those two reasons are available..

Its not a question of knowing, the fact that you know someone is doing somehting does not mean its your buisness now.

No, actually it is my business, as we are commanded to enjoin what is good, and to forbid what is evil...

But as long as its something that is up to the person doing it, you knowing or not doesn't change things. It only means you should advise them about it.

But each case has its proper response, advice will not work for all cases...Prophet Muhammed said "Whoever amongst you sees an evil must change it with his hands; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and this is the weakest form of faith."

We're talking about what God would've done, so i don't think neither of us should be sure about what god would've or wouldn't have done.

You are right, Allah knows what would have happened....

But I told you according to the verse I cited earlier, that disbelief is not the reason for the punishment, it is rather due to the most evil sin they were famous for, which is sodomy. (according to some of the books of Tafseer).....

The mere fact that a government makes something illegal, does not mean that people who do that thing are criminals, because sometimes the rule enforced is wrong.

That can be said if we are talking about a man-made rules, but the case here is different, the rule comes from Allah...So yes they are criminals...

 

[Badran]

I switched the order of a couple of the things you said and replied to them before others, because i need you to read some things before others. I hope you don't mind.

And when it comes to legeslations and rules, like the one at hand, from where should we bring the legislations, from people too, or from the source of legislations which is Islamic Shari'a?

The source of course will be Islam, i agree (since people agreed to have it this way). However, like i said people's opinions differ on what Islam says in some parts, and nobody have or should have authority over what are the "right" opinions and what are the "wrong" ones. So, as long as people accept the basic principles on which the Islamic government will be established, it will be as such, with lots of things however up for arguments and changes. The more good the people get, the better the system will get. It can only work this way, not the other way around.

How so? Didn't you just said that Lut's peoples were punished for many sins including homosexuality? Then according to that homosexuality is condemend in Qur'an, and no Islamic government should legalize something which is clearly condemned by Allah.

That can be said if we are talking about a man-made rules, but the case here is different, the rule comes from Allah...So yes they are criminals...

I think we're missing each other's points. This point right here that i will say, is the main point of the entire thread that i thought was clear by now. Yes, homosexual sex is condemned in the Quran, however, that in itself doesn't mean that its illegal. Sin is different from illegal, a criminal is not the same as a sinner. Illegal means god has told us to interfere and stop people from doing something, and punish them if they do. Not praying is condemned in the Quran, yet people are free to pray or not. Not fasting the same. Not believing in god, and not following his rules is also condemned many, many times. Yet, the Quran itself guarantees people's right in doing so. Why? Is this a contradiction? Of course not. People's right to do this, has nothing to do with wether or not we agree with it. We know these people do not believe in god, and are not following gods rules, which is something highly condemned in the Quran, yet we don't try stopping them from doing so, and protect that right of theirs, because its up to them, it has nothing to do with me. My only job is to advise and advocate the ideas i believe in this case.

Homosexual sex is the exact same case. Its not a crime, people doing it are not criminals, they're only (according to our beliefs) sinners, thats it.

Yes.

I'm glad you see it that way. What rises as a problem for you though that stops you from viewing the case with homosexuals in the same fashion? Is it the Hadith?

In case what i mean is not clear, i mean that nothing says in Islam that we should interfere or stop homosexuals from having sex, it only says that its wrong, the same way it says that not praying is wrong for example, so why in this case you feel obligated to deal with it in a different fashion? the hadith which says they should be punished? Because if so, i understand why you'll never be able to agree to what i'm saying.

Because I know no excuses for homosexuals to rudely ask for a "legal right" to commit that sin...Prophet Muhammed PBUH said "Every member of my nation will be forgiven, ecept those who epose their wrongdoings." Just for exposing it, let alone aking for "legal right"!!!!!

I guess i misunderstood, i thought you were comparing between not praying and having homosexual sex, and thats it. I didn't realize you were putting this in mind. In this case of course the one having homosexual sex is going against more rules than the one who isn't praying.

I should add something here, just in case. Some people of course as you know don't view having homosexual sex as wrong at all, and some muslims also view it in a different context than this. So, these will be the people mainly asking for this legal right. And to them, there is nothing more rude than you saying they have no right to this, and that they are the ones being rude in asking for it. I'm saying this part just in attempt to make it clear, that obviously people have different understanding of things, and thats why the mere fact that we view homosexual sex as wrong (according to the Quran), is not grounds to make it illegal. Neither the religion we adopt tells us to do so, and neither are there arguments to show how they're hurting other people, which would justify our interference.

No, actually it is my business, as we are commanded to enjoin what is good, and to forbid what is evil...

But each case has its proper response, advice will not work for all cases...Prophet Muhammed said "Whoever amongst you sees an evil must change it with his hands; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and this is the weakest form of faith."

I agree that each case has its proper response. And thats exactly why we have no right to do anything except advise in this case. Because nothing gives us the right to do otherwise.

For example, if you see someone not fasting, you obviously have no right to make him fast, or force him with your hands, no, you advise him. However, if you saw someone stealing, or trying to kill someone, you interfere with your hands, because here he is hurting somebody else, so its not up to him.

But I told you according to the verse I cited earlier, that disbelief is not the reason for the punishment, it is rather due to the most evil sin they were famous for, which is sodomy. (according to some of the books of Tafseer).....

I understand of course. Lot's people like i said earlier had actually bigger sins, because its not just disbelief. They refused the prophet that was send to them, and threatened him. Which are the main attributes that the people who were punished by god had.

They also wanted to go into Lot's house with force (when he had the three angels). Also i don't remember where this is mentioned, but i understand they raped men. Which obviously is a whole different level. If having sex with men who want to have sex is bad, how about having sex with men who don't want to.

Anyway, like i said earlier, if the hadith is the main reason for your position, please say so. Because i understand how it makes things different.

 

[Sajdah]

Well, Badran, as far as I see, we are just running around in circles, and I don't want to repeat myself...But here are some points I concluded from our debate so far.....

1- You think that people have "a right" to enter in arguments about the rules of legislations and clearly dismissing scholars' opinions (if I understood you correctly), although prophet Muhammad PBUH said that scholars are the heirs of prophets ( of course in knowledge)...

2- The comparison between sodomy and not performing prayers or other sins is illogical, because we can read nothing in the Qur'an referring to a punishment or a destruction of a town just for giving up praying, or not wearing Hijab, or even their mere disbelief in Allah...

3- The argument about disbelief and homosexuality is not correct, because disbelievers were giving the right to practice their disbelief by Allah, and clearly based on what you said homosexuals were not giving anything like that, they are just condemned and punished...So logically without even depending on any Hadith, such sin can not be Islamically legal by any stretch of imagination....And I'll repeat again, if there were no condemnation, or worldly punishment (the destruction of their town) and also no legalisation in the qur'an for it, you would have been able to claim what you are saying now, and your argument would have given much sense.

4- I don't care for those "Muslims" who want to impose their distorted understanding, or totally the lack of understanding about their religion on our societies, it's better for them to take their bacteria in a suitable place if they want it to grow, but Islamic societies are not suitable place for bacteria, and will never be Insha'Allah.

5- The reason for my position is the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, in the past and at present and certainly their position is based on Qur'an and Sahih Hadiths....And I used the verses from Qur'an here with you because you clearified your stance on some Hadiths, but I don't understand your position towards the verses from Qur'an, really!

There is a question I'd like to know its answer.....Would you have ever thought of the so called legal marriage of homosexuals if the west did not declare its legality?!

Finally, I wish you don't take anything I said personally, because I guess you know very well that what we are debating here is very dangerous, serious and sensitive.

 

[Sahar]

Well, Badran, as far as I see, we are just running around in circles, and I don't want to repeat myself...But here are some points I concluded from our debate so far.....

1- You think that people have "a right" to enter in arguments about the rules of legislations and clearly dismissing scholars' opinions (if I understood you correctly), although prophet Muhammad PBUH said that scholars are the heirs of prophets ( of course in knowledge)...

2- The comparison between sodomy and not performing prayers or other sins is illogical, because we can read nothing in the Qur'an referring to a punishment or a destruction of a town just for giving up praying, or not wearing Hijab, or even their mere disbelief in Allah...

3- The argument about disbelief and homosexuality is not correct, because disbelievers were giving the right to practice their disbelief by Allah, and clearly based on what you said homosexuals were not giving anything like that, they are just condemned and punished...So logically without even depending on any Hadith, such sin can not be Islamically legal by any stretch of imagination....And I'll repeat again, if there were no condemnation, or worldly punishment (the destruction of their town) and also no legalisation in the qur'an for it, you would have been able to claim what you are saying now, and your argument would have given much sense.

4- I don't care for those "Muslims" who want to impose their distorted understanding, or totally the lack of understanding about their religion on our societies, it's better for them to take their bacteria in a suitable place if they want it to grow, but Islamic societies are not suitable place for bacteria, and will never be Insha'Allah.

5- The reason for my position is the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, in the past and at present and certainly their position is based on Qur'an and Sahih Hadiths....And I used the verses from Qur'an here with you because you clearified your stance on some Hadiths, but I don't understand your position towards the verses from Qur'an, really!

There is a question I'd like to know its answer.....Would you have ever thought of the so called legal marriage of homosexuals if the west did not declare its legality?!

Finally, I wish you don't take anything I said personally, because I guess you know very well that what we are debating here is very dangerous, serious and sensitive.

Very well said, Masha' Allah!! :clap Jazaki Allah kolla khayr

 

[Badran]

Well, Badran, as far as I see, we are just running around in circles, and I don't want to repeat myself...But here are some points I concluded from our debate so far.....

No problem, i'll just explain my points one more time (so there is no misunderstandings regarding my position) and answer your question.

1- You think that people have "a right" to enter in arguments about the rules of legislations and clearly dismissing scholars' opinions (if I understood you correctly), although prophet Muhammad PBUH said that scholars are the heirs of prophets ( of course in knowledge)...

Not dismissing the scholars opinions, just not bound by it. In other words the scholars in my opinion shouldn't be given that kind of authority.

2- The comparison between sodomy and not performing prayers or other sins is illogical, because we can read nothing in the Qur'an referring to a punishment or a destruction of a town just for giving up praying, or not wearing Hijab, or even their mere disbelief in Allah...

Neither do we read that about homosexual sex, because like i explained we cannot conclude that they would've been punished if it were their only sin. Especially when there are bigger sins involved, bigger sins that also happen to be common in other people who were punished. I realize you may still disagree with that, but i'm just saying that from my point of view, this is the case, which explains with the rest of the points, why i hold my position.

3- The argument about disbelief and homosexuality is not correct, because disbelievers were giving the right to practice their disbelief by Allah, and clearly based on what you said homosexuals were not giving anything like that, they are just condemned and punished...So logically without even depending on any Hadith, such sin can not be Islamically legal by any stretch of imagination....And I'll repeat again, if there were no condemnation, or worldly punishment (the destruction of their town) and also no legalisation in the qur'an for it, you would have been able to claim what you are saying now, and your argument would have given much sense.

The part about worldly punishment i just explained. As for the part about god not explicitly giving them that right, is answered to me by the fact that its not the default position that things are illegal unless said to be legal. A lot of things are condemned, yet they are legal, because it is not said that they are or should be illegal.

4- I don't care for those "Muslims" who want to impose their distorted understanding, or totally the lack of understanding about their religion on our societies, it's better for them to take their bacteria in a suitable place if they want it to grow, but Islamic societies are not suitable place for bacteria, and will never be Insha'Allah.

Well sure, but of course, as you probably know, and i really mean no disrespect by this, they feel the same about you. And they have as much authority as you do.

5- The reason for my position is the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, in the past and at present and certainly their position is based on Qur'an and Sahih Hadiths....

Okay.

And I used the verses from Qur'an here with you because you clearified your stance on some Hadiths, but I don't understand your position towards the verses from Qur'an, really!

Well, we both explained our views and like you said we repeated ourselves, so i guess we won't see each other's points, which is okay.

There is a question I'd like to know its answer.....Would you have ever thought of the so called legal marriage of homosexuals if the west did not declare its legality?!

I wouldn't say that the west has declared it as legal in the first place. As far as i know in the US for example, its still illegal in most places. As for your question, its not about that at all. Its only like i explained in the OP, that i noticed a contradiction in my thinking, and also because i felt like a hypocrite when complaining about certain things, while my position being like this on this subject. Also the fact that there are people fighting for this right, and are not being given convincing reasons as to why they're being deprived from it, contributed of course to me reconsidering my position. And eventually this is the conclusion i came too.

Finally, I wish you don't take anything I said personally, because I guess you know very well that what we are debating here is very dangerous, serious and sensitive.

No not at all, i understand of course this is an important issue, and anyway thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.