There is a fascinating overlap between Salafis and most self proclaimed ‘Liberals’, both of whom seem to be having an (presumably) unconscious competition as to who can be the most bigoted and inflexible in their respective world-views. This congruence however is regarding what the ‘punishment’ for homosexual action should be in Islamic law (commonly referred to pejoratively as ‘Shariah’ Law’). Revealingly, they would both really like it to be death.
Of course, they differ as to why they would like this to be the case: for Liberals, taking on Islam as part of their extended spectrum war on religion/tradition and the family, they would like to show that Islam oppresses and kills sexual minorities and is as dangerous and intolerant as people suspect. Gay rights currently being a ’cause celebre’ (to the neglect of nearly every other type of rights such as the right to citizenship, education or even life if you happen to live in the poorer parts of the world – far more attention is lavished by Liberals on the cause of gay marriage than, say, eradicating child death from hunger, which is presumably to be left to Russell Brand), it would of course be expeditious if Islam were to mandate that homosexuality be punishable by death. We could then all switch off our brains and dismiss it as the ‘medieval’ menace we suspect it to be.
Salafis and their puritanical brethren the Deobandis would also love the punishment for homosexuality to be death – because to a puritan, anything harsh, violent or difficult is Manna from heaven and therefore more authentic, pure and religious. Suspicion of ease or pleasure is primal to the puritan world-view. It is a way for them to show just how diametrically they are opposed to what they think is ‘modernity’ but is usually more accurately leniency or mercy (though they would hate for it to be put thus) and to thereby earn points with a mass of Muslims feeling that their values and traditions are under threat. Minorities, whether they are religions, Goths or punk rockers, love to differentiate themselves from the masses and most Muslim groups are in fact exactly the same (albeit rather less fashionable).
The first matter that needs to be clarified is that homosexual orientation and even behaviour is not punishable in Islam at all (though it is morally reprimanded and in no uncertain terms). First of all, in Islamic legal theory it is nigh on impossible to prove anyone’s sexual peccadillos – which is why the Ottomans decriminalised homosexuality in 1858, something which helps proves our thesis as this undeniable fact is vigorously denied by both Islamophobes and Salafists – one could write a whole article about how both groups are keen to attribute this not to the traditional Hanafism of the Ottomans but to ‘secular’ Tanzimat reforms, betraying symmetrical and near complete ignorance of Ottoman history (or on how to use a search engine). Basically, being a sexually practising gay is not something which is punishable in Islamic law. What is punishable is the same thing that is punishable in the heterosexual case – having public intercourse in front of four or more witnesses, perhaps better called ‘public lewdness’. Like at an orgy or a sex tape or something. Or what is commonly known as ‘dogging’ in England.
In the Hanafi case, this in the worst scenario can result in flogging: any person who has straight or gay sex in front of four or more witnesses deliberately, will risk being publicly flogged (though the second Caliph Umar (RA), even lifted this punishment after a young man apostated after being caught ‘en flagrante’). In fact, the punishment for having gay public sex, as the talk by the noted traditionalist scholar below shows, was actually less than for having straight public sex. Which is a bit odd, but there you go.
Of course, this will neither please Salafis, who will be appalled at the leniency of the traditional (and majority) legal school of the Hanafis, nor Liberals, who will be furious that anyone should consider flogging people who have sex in public, put up porn videos etc at all but in the homology of their disapproval perhaps there is a lesson for people who can think critically.
After this guys first talk, elucidating the issue perfectly cogently and with referenced evidence that viewers could chase up for themselves, this poor traditionist had to film a second part (included below) since he was accosted with denials by Muslims who accused him of being a ‘sell out’ and pandering to the Zeitgeist. Yet he was only stating the position of the earliest and most authoritative jurist, Abu Hanifa, born in 63 AH (some time before the zeitgeist), whose legal school was and still is followed by the majority of Muslims – and more importantly by nearly all of the major Muslim empires and states (such as the Samanis, Timurids, Mughals and lately, the Ottomans), and is also the one followed by nearly all of the non-Arab Muslims of the world.
The Hanafis took a similar position on gay sex as they did on adultery (though they rightly identified that there was no punishment stipulated for the former in the Quran at all, and thus they too were reluctant to stipulate what God had not): namely that vigorous moral disapproval and punishment are two different things. None of the Muslim exegetes and authoritative scholars approved of homosexual action or for that matter fornication or adultery – but they did not mandate a punishment for them.
Of course, puritans cannot understand how you could disapprove of something without mandating a punishment but this is a failure of imagination and orthodoxy on their part. It is clear to even a unlearned reader of the Quran that for the vast number of vices the Quran is keen to elucidate at length, such as deception, avarice or the neglect of the poor and destitute, there is nonetheless no legal punishment stipulated.
The Islamic position on homosexual action is in no way exceptional within the context of Islamic legal theory and ethics, much to the chagrin of Salafists and their equally inflexible bedfellows, Liberals.
I like this scholar because he is brave enough to tell it like it is, regardless of kowtowing to either Muslims or non-Muslims, and gives enough detail to save me having to do an article about this, as I have long been planning. In short he explains that whereas the Quran is clear on stipulating a censure for ‘zina’ (illicit intercourse – either fornication or adultery, which incidentally are not referred to separately in the Quran but jointly under the term ‘zina’ and thus the Hanafis and others agree on the same sanction for both – namely flogging, and not stoning), it neglects to both specify one for homosexual sex or to class it as ‘adultery’. Therefore, in serious matters that mandate a physical punishment, lesser evidence than the Quran is not aldmitted by Hanafi legal theory (and most Malikis as well). In this and other cases, the Hadith are indeed lesser evidence, irrespective of their being graded ‘sahih’ (and the hadith gradings of jurists differ from that of hadith scholars). And in any case, the Hanafis find significant fault with hadiths calling for the capital punishment of either adulterers or homosexuals these narrations are boldly rejected by that legal school as well as by many other jurists, as the speaker ably demonstrates.
But at the same time, it is rather, well, pathetic that the well known Hanafi position on there being no punishment for homosexuality is resisted by so many Muslims. I mean, I knew about this when I was studying the rudiments of Islam, so it is somewhat indicative of the level of ‘authenticity’ that we have from groups such as Salafis, Deobandis, HT or whatever, that their explanations of the ‘Islamic’ approach to homosexuality failed to include the authoritative position of the Hanafis – rather, finding this position embarrassing, they followed the methodology of the Islamophobes and seemingly lied or ‘forgot’ about it.
Perhaps they were so worried about the proliferation of homosexuality in the Muslim community that they felt they had to help God and the classical scholars out by appearing to be ‘tough on gayness and tough on the causes of gayness’. Which is ironic, as they are also very tough on the ’causes’ of heterosexuality (like guys and girls being able to mix or talk to one another)…
So now you have the ACTUAL Islamic position on ‘punishing’ homosexual sex. In public. If any Liberals, Secularists and their ‘Islamic’ iterations, the Salafis, know any better, then allow me to utter the immortal words: ‘Come at me bro!’.
But if you can’t, then have the epistemic humility to admit your error and stop embarrassing the religion of God with your banality and nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJl4j_r5wdo&list=UUNQMOOMpH5KEWDnQCxXgfeA
Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi is a noted scholar and specialist in Islamic aqeeda and theological sciences. Undertaking his religious studies at first in secret in Uzbekistan while it was part of the USSR, he has gone on to have an eclectic and comprehensive Islamic education all over the Muslim world.
Already a scholar when he arrived in the Middle East, he studied in Damascus under such luminaries as Mhmd Adnan Darwish, graduating finally from Al Azhar but only after having studied both in Medina and the wider region, for example under Sh. Uthaymeen (and numerous others).
He is currently based in the Northwest of England where he is the founder of the Avicenna Academy.
Asharis: Assemble 
I agree that the salafis (shias also as the 12’er shia legal consequence is execution for homosexual acts) and liberals are too certain of their relative positions on the legal consequence of homosexuality.
However, I think Hanafis of the view articulated in the article above should not be certain either.
That can lead to minimizing the severe prohibition of such an act in Islam.
Let us not forget the very severe act of God against the Sodomites… who were initially sent Lot as a messenger but then with their rejection of him and their continued aggression in their community, they were sent brimstones from the sky as messengers.
The punishment may have been to a large degree because they were raping men and so on but we don’t know how much their acts of sodomy was involved in incurring the painful punishment.
Thanks a lot and good points, but because I know you are clearly smart, you need to think about what you just said:
So are you advocating:
1) Explaining and defending the positions of any and every legal and creedal school in Islam (12’er Shia etc)
2) Why should the Hanafi view not be certain? In the sense that it is certainly the view of Abu Hanfia, it is ‘certain’. For those that follow a madhab via taqleed, it is likewise ‘certain’. So I know that you are not advocating extreme scepticism & moral relativism, but later you kind of do.
3) How is it minimising the ‘severe prohibition’ of the act? Since the Hanafi ruling is derived from the Quran, are you accusing God of failing to correctly articulate the severity? So why did God fail to call for the death of ‘sodomites’ or even specify a punishment?
4) Where is you taxonomy of sins and where is Sodomy on it? Or oral sex with two men? Where does it rank? 7? 8? 2? Is it above or below maltreatment of parents? Neglect of the poor? Where is the list and how did you prove it? Especially if you do not accept taqleed?
5) What does the Quran say the people of Lot were killed for? Sodomy or rejecting God?
6) You addressed this and said you don’t know how much of their punishment was due to sodomy – it shows you are a person of intellect and honesty. So now if you don’t know, should we allow capital punishment on the basis of stuff that we ‘don’t know’? Is that a part of Islamic legal theory?
7) Homosexuality as a sexual practice is harshly reprimanded and criticised by God. Why is that not enough? Why does He have to hurt them to make you believe Him when He says He disapproves? Isn’t the difference between humans and baser animals that humans can understand concepts without the carrot and the stick?
8) How come God also ‘forgot’ to specify punishments for things which receive far more coverage in the Quran, such as neglect of the destitute and injustice? These are worse than sodomy or get a lot more coverage from God, but God also did not specify a punishment for them.
9) If we want to change Islamic rulings because of our current fears about the Gay Lobby, sin’t that just secularism?
10) Is today the most gay situation we have ever been confronted with? Lot seems even more gay – so if God wanted to specify something like punishing them with death etc, that would have been the time to do it no? Isn’t it like those ‘scholars’ who say niqaab is waajib now because of how ‘bad’ things have gotten…but then how come it wasn’t when in the time of the Prophet (SAW) up to ten men would have intercourse with a single woman. In one go.
So what you said can be quite dangerous…there are other ways of taking on the gay lobby other than specifying shariah punishments.
>Passively accusing people of secularism and “changing the din” immediately after they use tradition as their primary source.
Topkek.
Also, where did he say Homosexuality was not a sin? In fact. Pretty sure they did say that. They just said that the ruling is not death. And it isn’t. In most iterations of Classical Hanafi jurispudence. Even Yusuf al-Qaradawi admits this, if I’m not mistaken.
Hi,
I have watched the Shaykh’s video before.
Do you know of any other modern Hanafi scholar who has the same opinion as Shaykh Atabek?
Secondly, at what stage did the original Hanafi position morph into the present majority opinion? Can it be narrowed down to any of the later authoritative ashab al-tarjih?
I think the answers to these two questions would greatly remove doubts.
So you found yet another IP address.
Why does it matter what the latest ‘Hanafis’ say?
The guy showed you the direct opinion of Abu Hanifa himself. That’s like being presented with the opinion of Jesus and then asking ‘But what does Billy Graham say?’
Perhaps if you let me know who you consider to be a ‘Hanafi’ scholar, then I could point you to some. Deobandis/Brelwis are not Hanafis despite their protestations, as can be ascertained by their willingness to ignore the main position of the Hanafis in this and other matters. As for recent authoritative Hanafis agreeing with tbis (as well as the issue of not stoning adulterers, which you no doubt are also losing sleep over), they include Abu Zahra, Ahmed Mustafa Zarka, Khudari Bek etc. So what? Is the truth not the truth until a large number of people believe in it? Is Christianity better than Islam because it has more followers?
Think for yourself instead of following authorities: weigh their arguments and decide what is stronger for yourself.
Oh, and I liked your cheap shot: who says the present majority opinion OF HANAFIS is that Homosexuals should be punished? Prove it dear.
Or you could turn your question on itself: since we proved that this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Doctor Maximus, do you know any modern Hanafi who says Abu Hanifa was wrong and he knows better? So even with argument from authority, I win.
Like Burger King: Have it your way!
Dear fellow brother/sister in Islam,
I am frankly astonished at the aggressive tone of your reply to my questions which I asked without any agenda.
I certainly don’t understand the point of your first sentence nor why you should refer to me as Doktor Maximus – sincerely I am at a loss.
I had been under the impression that asking questions to seek knowledge is to be commended but apparently you seem to have taken my words as some form of barbed attack.
Until you have learnt more about my character and motives, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of not pigeon-holing me as a troll – even if you are unable to extend husni zann.
I have admired Shaykh Atabek since I came across his videos and have found that I agree with almost of his statements. I have learnt a lot from his videos and if I was in a position to learn from him directly, I would certainly strive to do so.
My questions simply related to a common criticism I have read of him – that he is a lone voice and that he misrepresents the mufta bihi position of the madhab – and I had hoped you might address this as, too my knowledge, it has not been done in his or his students’ videos.
I have in my studies with Deobandi and Barelwi scholars not recieved an adequate answer as to what qualified later scholars to judge on and move away from the verdicts of Imam Abu Hanifah. Their failure and a number of other issues meant that I no longer take Deobandi or Barelwi positions as authoritative. Despite being educted primarily by Deobamdi ulema, I do not consider myself to be a Deobandi (and nor a Barelwi).
I believe the questions I asked are relevant and the wording does not suggest any specious postering or ‘cheap shots’. I do not have access to literature to answer the questions I jave and simply hoped you would be able to remove my ignorance.
Having reread your reply I still cannot understand the aggressiveness of your tone. Perhaps you are confronted daily by haters that yoi have developed a default offensiveness.
If so, then I sympathise with you but would ask that you uphold to gentleness in speach and in your writing. Even if you aren’t a student of the Shaykh, I cannot imagime he would disagree.
If you are able to help me with my questions then I would still appreciate it. Perhaps it might make the basis of a future article.
I hope I haven’t offended you further but “to live is to war with trolls”.
Peace.
You sound very familiar to another guy who posts here a lot, gets banned and then posts again. In fact, you still sound familiar to him. Maybe it’s just your ‘bad luck’.
I don’t think you understand what ‘aggression’ is. You obviously didn’t read the reply carefully as well – I referred to Abu Hanifa and not you as ‘Doctor Maximus’ so someone who reads so carelessly is bound to get easily offended.
Also, I answered your question by 1) telling you to use your own judgement to weigh the evidence and see who is right to the best of your ability and to not delegate your thinking, and 2) by giving you the names of some Hanafis from the past century who uphold this opinion. Maybe you need a list of the Hanafi books – he already gave it in his talk.
As to when the opinion ‘morphed’, I also alluded to this with reference to the Deo-Brelwis and you agree that they are not representative. As for the classical opinion, the guy gave it in his talk. If you want to do an opinion poll of modern Hanafis to see how many agree with Abu Hanifa or not, I can’t help you, but I explained that this is perhaps not a wise way of ascertaining the truth.
Where you got the idea that I am perhaps his student I don’t know. It’s another quirk I guess. If you have some unadressed criticism of his ideas then show it. You are pleading that you have no other agenda from the fact that you claim that he is a lone voice: but why do you not judge him by the content of his presentation as opposed to how many people agree with him, something you were asked to do before. Also, if you are so well acquainted with his critics and students (seemingly more so than myself as I have no idea what you are on about), go and ask them and him directly. He seems easily accessible on the internet and Facebook so I don’t see the problem.
Your comment summarises to ‘I agree with what he is saying but I want to know why some other Hanafis, who I know are not really Hanafis do not agree with him. Also, he is a lone voice so maybe he is wrong’. I can’t really answer something like that. It amounts to further ‘why do people who disagree with him disagree with him’, which is something you need to ask them. If you feel he failed to show the Hanafis position, then that is something I can help with.
Reprimanding people for not fitting in with your personal definition of manners, adhab, husan ul zann etc is itself bad mannered. You will find it very hard to justify the level of mildness you expect me to show from the Islamic sources – I gave you a robust reply, I am within my right to do that, as are you. You act as if I insulted you grievously. Control of ego requires that you should not be aghast at it and should rather consider if the tone of your question was ambiguous does it not?
So I am sorry you got offended and if you want more sources or want me to reply to the specific argument of people who say that a punishment is mandated etc, I am happy to do so. As for why people lie about the Hanafi position and there are not many like the Sheikh, then it is obvious from what you yourself said: if whole institutions like Deoband and Brelwis can take such liberties with the texts, what do you expect?
So your question was addressed to the best of my ability: why you would read a ‘future article’ by a troll or wish him peace after leblling him thus I do not know.
It seems common politeness is lost on you as are basic comprehension skills. However, exagerration and misrepresentation you’ve got down to a tee.
Your reply simply demonstrates the Ibsen quote I ended on. It was not directed at you but a general observation and if anything the context indicates I was referring to myself.
There is no need to further this discussion. I would usually sign off a comment with ‘Peace’ or ‘Regards’ or somesuch but I’d prefer not to be the object of more of your misdirected prickliness.
It seems common politeness is lost on you as are basic comprehension skills. However, exagerration and misrepresentation you’ve got down to a tee.
Your reply simply demonstrates the Ibsen quote I ended on. It was not directed at you but a general observation and if anything the context indicates I was referring to myself.
There is no need to further this discussion. I would usually sign off a comment with ‘Peace’ or ‘Regards’ or somesuch but I’d prefer not to be the object of more of your misdirected prickliness; I dread to think your reaction.
So first of all, I had realised after a second reading of your comment before posting my reply that you did not direct the troll comment at me, but WordPress published the first draft of my reply as they always do. What’s funny is that you HAVE now directed the comment at me, so I guess it was ‘firasat’.
In any case, it doesn’t matter: like all people who call for exaggerated ‘adhab’, you showed your true colours with a bevy of insults: I apparently lack even basic comprehension, I lack even common politeness (because I don’t adhere to your self stated and unproven standards) and I exaggerate and misrepresent (AKA ‘lying’).
And that’s the problem with all people like yourself and why I don’t waste time treating you with the kiddy gloves like you want: first of all, despite your posturing, you resort to your own ‘robust’ comments when things don’t go your way, like a good fascist you expect everyone to act how you want and if they don’t they are stupid, rude etc, you judge people’s behaviour by what you think should be Islamic manners instead of what they actually are and you engage in epic time wasting: after being given a lengthy set of discussion points from the role of intellect in weighing information in Islam, the heterodox nature of groups like Deoband etc, all you focus on is 1) my manners, while finally displaying that yours are no better or in fact worse and 2) how something is being said and not what is being said.
So I personally find it rude and idiotic that someone would go on about their quibbles about my tone instead of engaging with the points, but I don’t impose that on others. So what?
Unfortunately, most Muslims, almost certainly including yourself, have been indoctrinated into this weird kind of Sufism/adhab cult where they are taught that people with knowledge or who deserve to be listened to follow a fictitious set of ‘manners’. This makes the poor students totally obsessed with minor points of etiquette and they think that without these there can be no trust, knowledge or interaction. Basically anyone worth listening to has the kind of adhab that their teachers told them they should. Funnily, most of the scholars who teach this also accept hadiths of Abu Bakr and the Prophet (SAW) using sexual swearwords, so it’s more hadith ‘pick and mix’.
I would advise you to get over it, grow up and develop a thicker skin, for life not only for ‘Islam’. I would also ask you to heed the advice of Ali and Al Ghazzali when they said that ‘a fool looks at who is talking and not what is being said’, so don’t be that fool. Secondly, if you are so interested in manners, etiquette, politeness, anti-prickliness etc, control your ego and don’t react like a maniac with flurries of veiled insults when things don’t go your way: that’s the same thing everyone does. So who was being prickly in your reply? And did I call you a liar, say you lacked comprehension etc? So it is just the same as assassins coming with smiles. Your manners are far worse but since you have the proverbial smile on your face, you are blind to it.
You misunderstood my statement about Abu Hanfia being ‘Doctor Maximus’, as I did yours about trolls. But did you admit it like I did? So actually, for this and the above-mentioned reasons, for someone so obsessed with minor points of tone and etiquette, you in fact suck at manners, and you need to be told because you may be able to accept it, stop congratulating yourself on how wonderful you are and how lame people like me are, and actually improve. This is what Sufism is really about and people who ‘get it’, get it and people who don’t, don’t. You seem to be too self absorbed to ‘get it’ but who knows.
I may be rude but I am not egotistical and imposing my values on others and unable to accept my mistakes like you, so my sincere apologies for offending and for misrepresenting you.
I am replying without a reread of your unpleasant screed and so may miss some relevant points. However I would like to end this by referring to some specific points you raised.
My observations about your lack of civility, poor comprehension, misrepresentation and exageration are not insults but a quite accurate summary based upon your initial reply. Your latest contribution amply testifies to the accuracy of my description: a nice self-serving harangue if ever there was one full of ad hominems and misrepresentations of what I wrote.
My failure to understand that you were referring to Abu Hanifa with the epithet ‘Doctor Maximus’ has to do with the ambiguous grammatical construction you employed – if you wish to be understood then I suggest you write clearly rather than blame your readers. I did not refer to it simply because the fault was with you.
As for the charge that I accused you of lying; again there is a basic failure of comprehension on your part and willful exaggeration. Lying and misrepresentation are not synonymous. You certainly misrepresented what I wrote and thus I was entiltled to point that out. If I knew that it was intentional, then I would have accused you of lying but I pointedly did not as I don’t know the state of my mind. You apparently do however know the state of mine, based on the ad hominems against me littering your comments.
I will not comment on you misrepresenting me as somehow trying to impose my values on you other than to say it is patently absurd and false.
Finally it is quite sad that you chose to reply as you did to my initial post because I have generally enjoyed reading many of your posts; agreed with what you wrote on this post, and merely wanted to know if you could help provide some further information.
If you reread these comments perhaps you will realise that you have made a mountain out of a molehill. And after looking through your other posts, I have come to the conclusion that you have “been warring with trolls” so much that you seem quick to take a ‘robust’ stance even to the most innocent enquiry. If my quote still confuses you, I am referring neither to you or myself but persons like the one you initially confused me with. Your very first sentence to me hints at your paranoia over trolls and haters.
I believe I am a quite ‘robust’ person but our miscommunication has saddened me. You are obviously someone deeply concerned with the same questions and problems that I have and I had hoped to learn something from you – or at the very least to be pointed to a beneficial source.
Whether you choose to reply or not, I shall not continue this discussion. You have wasted too much of my time: my error was in not sending a more ‘robust’ response to your initial reply.
But you should not have provoked him bro, especially if you ‘knew’ he was like that!
I think he was trying to ask you why Deobandis and Brelwis suck, but he didn’t make it very clear. So a good way would be to take the information from this Sheikh and then challenge them with it and see who has the proof. You did explain it but he couldn’t get over your tone. I’m not saying you were rude, but he seems to have liked your stuff before.
Looks like you lost a fan!
I’m not in this to make fans like all those other losers on the ‘Islam’ circuit: I want to try and help people wake up and think for themselves – I am more concerned with that than people liking me or saying how great guy I am. I make my point in the way I know how, it doesn’t suit everyone. There is no point me changing my style to ‘reach’ people – you will usually loose as many as you gain that way, so who decides what is the right adhab and best style? We saw that here, people cry out for politeness and then what happened?
Also, internet anonymity brings out the worst in people, especially religious people, so it is an excellent testing ground for tasawwuff. You should see how many death threats people get on this site.
Wow, he actually apologised (though it was a bit half baked – I agree, he’s only really sorry for using ‘cunt’, it’s possibly just more superficial manners again). So fine, carry on positing. I don’t get offended by rubbish like this, you merely messed up things for yourself. In fact, you were doing that previously anyway: he was calling you arrogant and obsessed with superficialities and demanding of your own standard of manners and you kept proving him right. It is not a good way to make your point.
You are being harsh! Anyone can get angry and ‘whig’ out.
True, I used to do it a lot too so I can’t complain. Maybe it’s ‘payback’ I deserve. Still, half baked apology though.
I realise i have out stayed my welcome on this site and realise that you are free to call me a hypocrite for posting again. It is your prerogative to do so but I wish to set the record straight regarding my intentions.
Other than saying sorry and apologising again, i don’t know how any apology would not seem ‘half baked’. I had thought a simple apology without mitigation/justification would be appropriate and then make a hasty leave. To write that i am ashamed of my words is i think not half baked. But if it is so, then let me try again.
I was wrong for ending my post as a i did and i apologise to you sincerely. I was vexed how a genuine question to you had somehow ended into each of us arguing over who was more ruder, ignorant, etc. than the other. I immediately realised my offence but what is done can’t be undone. If this was google+ I would have deleted that comment immediately.
I also apologise to any one else offended by my words.
To be clear, I have never posted to this site before. Please do not mistake me for someone else who you may have had run-ins with before.
I have reread all the posts again and I cannot for the life of me see how my initial post could be taken as anything other than a genuine request for follow-up info based on your post. Neither can I understand why you chose to reply to me as you did. I stand by my initial post and my complaint that you misunderstood my first post and subsequent reply. I have never accused you of lying, nor did I insinuate it.
If I was to rephrase my initial question, it would have been something like this:
“Did latter authorities such as Ibn Nujaym, Imam Mausili etc.agree with Abu Hanifa’s stance or had they in their time taken the view that sodomy was punishable by death? Or did this view only originate from the late 1800s in India with the Deobandis and Barelwis?”
To me this seams a genuine and straight forward question to which I don’t have the answers nor access to the relevant resources to do so. I had hoped you could have simply pointed me in the right direction. I don’t recall this point being addressed by the Shaykh in the video because Hanafis do not simply follow Abu Hanifa but the madhab built upon his legal principles and fiqh rulings.
Imam Atabek is so far the only Hanafi scholar I know of who holds the opinion he does – if it can be shown that, for instance, Imam Sarakhsi, or Ibn Nujaym or Ibn Abidin hold the same opinion then that is evidence to show that expert latter authorities who the Deos/Barelwis accept also go against their position. But if authoritative scholars such as these who are not influenced by Deobandiism/Batelwiism also oppose Abu Hanifa then the matter is not so straight forward.
This is not a fallacious appeal to authority but a genuine procedure in fiqh to look at authoritative scholarly precedent/opinion.
You may think my initial apology not strong or clear enough or that I have caveated it. Prior to my offensive last sentence you had already accused me of egoism and arrogance. I did not take offence at that but pointed out that you indulged in ad hominems. I still believe you did.
However, I completely overstepped the line by my last sentence even if it was couched in a hypothetical. I was wrong to write what I did in my last sentence and I do ask for your forgiveness and the forgiveness of anyone else reading my comments.
You may think the above was another banal waste of your time. If so I apologise. I do not comment anonymously and so i felt it important to explain myself without exhonerating myself of the stupidity and offensiveness of my final remark.
I think he was an innocent guy who just wanted to get to the truth. Yeah, he was a bit arrogant but who isn’t.
But I can’t blame you either: 90% of the people here are ‘trying it’ so you have to go in hard. Especially the guys trying to sound clever or the adhab crew so I get it. It’s a tragedy.
Uh, yeah but what did I say that was so bad? People need a thicker skin man. There’s kids dying out there, people shaming Islam and people can’t cope with my ‘tone’? How they gonna cope with ‘life’ of an argument with their wife or a war or something? Are we raising a generation of dysfunctional people who can’t take anything? Seriously, what was the worst thing I said to him?!
Just don’t allow the comments section mmmclmru, it never leads to anything fruitful due to the trolls and spammers and Salafists and death threats and crap. Look at this poor chap, you both got the wrong end of the stick and look what happened – a big fight for no reason!
It causes more problems than it is worth: those who are going to ‘get’ the posts do and the others, forget it. Like you said all that stuff about thinking for yourself etc.
Also, if Muslims need deep persuasion to NOT kill people on weak evidence like sahih hadith, they are too far gone to help. i mean, if someone isn’t careful about killing someone or hurting them then they are pretty far gone. So if we are like some other religions where if we find some ‘narration’ saying ‘kill babies’ and then we start acting on it, what’s the point of us then?
If the Quran can’t even mention the stuff for which there is death penalty then the Quran is pointless and God should have revealed hadith as well and made it clear that ‘sahih’ means take it into aqeeda and fiqh. So God ‘failed’ or Muslims ‘failed’. using ahad hadith to ‘specify’ a muttawatir Quran makes no sense.
Only the Hanafi way makes sense, rejecting hadith that clash with Quran: anything else is dumb, I’m sorry, including the Shafi way of twisting the meaning of Quran to fit with ahad. If ahad is certain then the Quran being muttawatir is aimless.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Yeah, go ahead, delete them, I’m not bothered.
[un]holy cow! When did Ryu and Ken come out of the closet?
Gayness of Ken and Ryu is a matter of Ijma of both all Muslims and Kufaar. Don’t you even know that?!
So the ACTUAL questions:
“Did latter authorities such as Ibn Nujaym, Imam Mausili etc.agree with Abu Hanifa’s stance or had they in their time taken the view that sodomy was punishable by death? Or did this view only originate from the late 1800s in India with the Deobandis and Barelwis?”
To me this seams a genuine and straight forward question to which I don’t have the answers nor access to the relevant resources to do so. I had hoped you could have simply pointed me in the right direction. I don’t recall this point being addressed by the Shaykh in the video because Hanafis do not simply follow Abu Hanifa but the madhab built upon his legal principles and fiqh rulings.
Imam Atabek is so far the only Hanafi scholar I know of who holds the opinion he does – if it can be shown that, for instance, Imam Sarakhsi, or Ibn Nujaym or Ibn Abidin hold the same opinion then that is evidence to show that expert latter authorities who the Deos/Barelwis accept also go against their position. But if authoritative scholars such as these who are not influenced by Deobandiism/Batelwiism also oppose Abu Hanifa then the matter is not so straight forward.”
Okay, a good way of looking at this is WHY do Deobandis, for example, not accept Imam Abu Hanifa’s position on this an tonnes of other issues. Also, the point that the madhab is not ‘just’ the opinions of Abu Hanifa is not quite right – and you have to remember, people who want to admit evidence OTHER than his opinion will have no choice but to tell you that. So the madhab is the ‘Zahiri Riwayat’, as Sheikh Atabek explained, the authoritative narrations of Abu Hanifa as authenticated by those ‘top 10’ students and the ‘Mu’tamat’, the MAIN position of that school (or any school, like say the Malikis have their own mu’tamat positions).
These two concepts are important in any system of thought for first of all systematising the legal theory and second to stop people from ‘outside’ speaking for it. The MAIN position, the Mu’tamat, is important because without having the ‘main position’ you could take all the outliers and make up a madhab which was very strange – the classic example is temporary marriage, which is a minority opinion in Hanafi madhab or marrying your biological sister if she was illigitimate, which is a minority opinion amongst some Shafis, but the MAIN position is that this is of course not allowed (the Mu’tamat). Just as if you look at any ideological group, say physicists, you will find one who says the universe is a hologram, but what is the main position of physicists or Jesuits or whatever on different opinions?
So if you want to twist the madhab to fit with your own expectations, and Deobandis are not the first to do this or ‘invent’ this, you have to find some way of 1) ignoring the mu’tamat and if possible the juristic and epistemic principles (for example, Usool of Tafseer, Usool of Hadth, usoool of fiqh) 2) Ignoring Zahiri Riwayat and 3) picking and choosing between people of varying authority in the madhab – a bit like me saying that I found a graduate of Biology from Cambridge who is a Christian therefore Cambridge does not teach evolution. Which would be crazy and easily recognised by us, but when it happens in a madhab, it is not so easy. If the HEAD of biology or whatever at Cambridge didn’t believe in Evolution, it would be a different matter but still not enough for us to say ‘Cambridge’ does not teach it. Although a madhab is not like a university, it is an ideology or system of thought or proof.
So yes, Hanafi madhab is not JUST the opinion of Abu Hanaifa, but his opinion is the most important, and usually the mu’tamat (but not always) so the mu’tamat is the main, agred and accepted opinion of the madhab. So if it is not only Abu Hanifas opinion, whose is it? Is it a majority vote, does everyone’s opinion have the same vote? Also, who is qualified to HAVE an opinion, or to disagree with Abu Hanifa.
As Suede Nikita has put up before, here is a sample grading of ‘rankings’ within a madhab:
1. ‘Mujtahid Mutlaq’ – Such as Imam Abu Hanifah (or Imam Malik etc) – the highest level and it is he who set up the Hanafi madhab (system of knowledge about religion). They articulate and prove first principles and base them on sound reasoning – so they elucidate the epistemology of that madhab. They should not follow any other scholars of their own or lower level and are not even allowed to do so since they are able to reason from said first principles. The requirement of intellect, memory and independent verification and peer review to reach this level is almost preposterously exacting by any system of knowledge; for example, knowing everything by heart which can include pieces of evidence ranging into the hundreds of thousands or even millions verbatim. Such people are thus exceedingly rare and none will be found to meet the required standard today (though many will claim it).
2. Mujtahid Muqayyad – such as Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad (Salafis disagree but this is due to their own antagonisms and novel methodology). Theoretically they shouldn’t leave the madhab and they can only use the already established principles of the madhab to issue fatwa (rulings) about non – existing masail (new problems that need answers, like for example nowadays, the permissibility of organ transplantation). But in practice we do see them leaving the madhab from time to time.
3. As’haab Tarjeeh – examples would be individuals such as Qadikhan, Sarakhsi. It’s those who can chose the stronger opinion if there is more than one opinion availible within the madhab, by weighing the evidence for each position and choosing. But if there is only one opinion they are not qualified to leave that opinion. As well as if there is more than one then they are not qualified to take some opinion from outside of the madhab.
4. Rawil-Madhab – it’s those who are trusted to narrate the mu’tamad (official) position of the Madhab.
So there is a lot of scope for messing about and people playing tricks on you, especially if you don’t have access to the sources – which is mainly the ‘Zahiri Riwayat’. As with the Prophet (SAW), there are tonnes of fabricated narrations from Abu Hanifa, portraying him as everything from a Mujassim to a Mu’tazzila, but we can only accept what the top ten students put down in authenticated chains in Zahiri Riwayat and then again the mu’tamat of the Madhab, which only rarely disagrees with the opinion of Abu Hanifa himself.
So now, why would someone disgree with Abu Hanifa on say, homosexuality but still be a Hanafi? Is it, as you thought, because they applied his principles and came to a different conclusion to himself? Certainly this is possible, but the fact is that this is rarely the case – it is usually for more political reasons and factionalism within the madhab. We will come onto this, but if you accept the above ‘grades’ of scholars I gave above (and Hanafis do), basically, people like Ibn Abideen are not qualified to disagree with Abu Hanifas opinion, according to Hanafi usool and rankings. Anyone however CAN disagree if they can show a failure of logic on Abu hanfia or anyone else’s part, but if someone like Ibn Abideen or even a higher and earlier authority like Qadi Khan failed to catch Abu Hanifa out, their argument would not be accepted ‘on authority’ as they are not a ‘big enough’ authority.
So those guys you named, are not the main Imams of Hanafis ANYWAY and they are none of them even Mujtahod Muqayyum. I don’t really know about Ibn Nujaym but Saraksi agrees with Zahiri Riwayat on this (not that he has a choice anyway). Everyone else agrees. We will talk about Ibn Abideen and Abu Yusuf (but it was in the talk too).
But did the opinion originate in 1800 India? No, Shafis and Malikis and Hanabalis have had it from the beginning and some Hanafis have had it too, specifically the Hanafis who follow the ‘Hadithy’ way and non-Hanafi usool of Hadith – Sheiklh Atabek mentioned this in his talk – that Abu Yusuf disagrees with Imam Abu Hanifa on this issue, and he is a direct student of Abu Hanifa. so there will be, out of the million calling themselves Hanafis, some who disagree – if they could establish their disagreement based of Hanafi as opposed to Hanbali usool, they would have prevailed and the mutamat of the madhab would have been with them and not Imam Muhammad and Abu Hanifa. But they didn’t.
It’s a bit like looking for Americans who supported the USSR during the Cold War: which ones? Usually the ones who agreed with Stalinism, Communism or whatever. But most Americans follow ‘Capitalism’, Thus with Hanafis, most follow the mutamat and in fact have to to be called Hanafis. Some do not but as I told you, you can find Anarchists, Socialists whatever in a democracy but the governments position is still capitalism or democracy or whatever.
So this takes us to a quick review of what Deo-brelwis do: they take unqualified latter day non-entities like Thanwi, Gangohi or even Ahmad Rida Khan and take them as Mujtahid Mutlaq (they often don’t admit this openly) or at the very least Mutahid Muqayyad. So they take massive liberties with the madhab. The reason these groups hate each other is because they decided to take their respective Imams as authoritative and had nothing to ‘check’ them against. The other thing these groups do is take minority opinion within the madhab (but only the strict puritanical opinions), like niqaab being waajib, wearing red being haraam for men or whatever and then present them as the ‘Hanafi’ opinion, dazzling innocent bystanders with the names and biographies of ‘Imams’ who held these opinions, which people then take on trust as authoritative. but when, as you did, someone asks them what qualifies these ‘Imams’ to oppose Abu Hanifa, they don’t have a satisfactory reply.
The main reason these groups do not take the classical Hanafi position (and it is just these groups: if you ask any Turkish, Azhari, Iranian or Central Asian Hanafis, they will almost ALL give you the same answer as Sheikh Atabek – but I’m guessing you only have access to South Asian ‘Hanafis’, which is the case for most people. Tim Winter is Hanafi, he also agrees with Sheikh Atabek. So does Hafiz Connors and all non-South Asian i.e actual Hanafis) is actually because none of them accept the Hanafi Mustalah or Usool of hadith. So as you may know, the main cause of differences between the madhabs is which hadith the accept and which they do not, for example, a simple illustration is the issue of Rafayadain or raising the hands in prayer: Shafis accept hadith which Hanafis reject.
You can go and ask ANY Deobandi or Brelwi (Daruloom Dewsbury, Bury, Leicester wherever up to Deoband itself) which books they study hadith from and what usool of hadith they follow: they all follow the Shafi one. Deobandi Sheikh Ul Hadith even deny there is any such thing as Hanafi usool of hadith. If you ask them about the book in which it is contained, ‘Al Mutassaar’, they haven’t even heard of it and act like it was one of the relics in ‘Indiana Jones’ or something.
So we have this bizarre position of people being Hanafis but following Shafi usool of hadith: accepting the same hadith and then coming to different conclusions, which makes the explanations for the differences between the madhabs outlandish, as you can see from Deobandi books such as ‘Fiqhul Imaam’: they are trying to say that the differences are due to different ‘understandings’ of the hadith as opposed to different usool of hadith but this is totally irrational: Madhabs are mainly based on their usool of tafseer and usool of hadith and so are the differences between them.
So then why do they ignore the Hanafi Mustalah of hadith? It is because these people are from the muhaditheen and puritanical ‘camp’: in general, Malikis and Hanafis reject a lot more narrations than do Shafis and Hanblalis, and there is huge friction historically between the Muhaditheen and Hanafis (including Imam Ahmad and Bukhari versus Hanaifis): you can read an excellent account by this guy: https://asharisassemble.com/2014/05/27/have-you-been-blackmailed-by-bukhari-yet/
After the assassination of Abu Hanifa by the Abassids, they immediately appointed his student Abu Yusuf as Qadi. This is exceedingly strange, but the reason is that he was more towards the party of hadith (who were influential with the Abassids with the exception of Caliph M’amoon and his direct successor) than Abu Hanifa and went so far as to takfir Abu Hanifa twice (as did other Muhaditheen like Ahmad and Bukhari). There was then friction between him and Imam Muhammad, who was appointed by the Abassids at Abu Yusuf’s request (he was Qadi for the famous Harun Al Rashid).
This is just a taster: things are much more complicated than people think – Abu Yusuf making takfir on Abu Hanifa, the Usooli Hanafis against the ‘Hadithy’ Hanafis, it is a big story. This whole story of the madhabs holding hands in nonsense and the fuqahah and mutakallims were frequently at war with the muhaditheen. it’s still going on today.
So you wanted to know Ibn Abideen’s position on homosexuality, or Ibn Nujaym: my question – are they authorities in Hanafi madhab? Ibn Abideen narrates the opinion of Abu Hanifa THROUGH Ibn Taymiyyah – a Hanbali mujassim. Is he reliable? So unless you know these things, it is easy to get fooled. Who says Ibn Nujaym is an authority of the order of Qadi Khan? Why do they not ask the opinion of Imam Maturidi – he wrote a tafseer of Quran and is Imam, including of aqeeda? It is because they are elevating non-entities who agree with them and ignoring the Imams who disagree with them. So Qadi Khan and even more so Imam Maturidi are more deserving of narrating the position of the madhab. They agree with Abu Hanifa and this guy. If anyone has a quote by them, then bring it.
This is why I told you from then outset to use your own judgement, look at the PRINCIPLES – can someone be killed on the basis of an AHAD hadith AT ALL? Shafis, Hanbalis say yes, Hanafis say no, death and punishment must be based on certain evidence and most hadith are not ‘certain’ and nor is ‘sahih’ = ‘certain’, at least not for us: a Hadith being in Bukhari does not mean Hanafis and Malikis accept it; it has to match with OUR list of conditions, not Bukharis’. We have our own Imams of hadith like Isa Ibn Abban and do not accept Bukharis’ grading, but Shafis and Hanbalis do. Groups like Deo-Brelwis accept both Bukhari’s and Muhaditheens gradings and (some of) Abu Hanifas verdicts and on usool of Fiqh they vacillate. That’s one of their many problems.
Basically, in Hanafi usool of fiqh, you couldn’t kill ANYONE on evidence less than the Q’uran, which is why I asked you to think if this makes sense to you rather than seeking authorities. Authorities ARE there – I gave you the name of top Hanafi scholars from the past century, I can give you twenty of thirty others if you want but none of them will be from Deoband or Brelwis. You say Sheikh Atabek is a lone voice: not in Turkey or Central Asia he isn’t: we learnt this stuff in Turkish madrassas when we were kids. So did Hafiz Connors, another scholar and contributor to this site who upholds the Hanafi position.
In fact, I know of no one who DOESN’T hold this position apart from these Deo-Brelwi or Salafi ‘Hanafis’, which you yourself already found wanting. And even they are clearly lying, as it is found in books like ‘Kitab Al Athar’ of Imam Muhammad (the first book by the Tabaeen and accepted by all Hanafis) and ‘Al Mukhtasaar Khuduri’ – both are translated in English and the opinion is in there unequivocally (though Deobandis like to put footnotes in there to ‘explain’ it). The problem is that some people like Deobandis don’t like it and exploit our ignorance to ‘revise’ these opinions as they see fit. The Hanafi usool of Hadith is undoubtedly in ‘Al Mutasaar’ (meaning the ‘condensed thing’). It is being taught by those Avicenna guys and Hafiz Connors, TIm Winter etc, along with all of this usool of Fiqh stuff, so you can get degree level detail, ijaazats etc from them if you so wish
If you want to delegate your thinking to an Imam, then I don’t recommend it: there is no taqleed on issues of creed or killing, but if you HAVE to go to authority, then why not Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad and all of the main Imams such as Maturidi, Qadi Khan, Abu Zahra, Samarkandi, Al Kawthari, Ahmed Mustafa Zarka, Khudari Bek etc etc.
There is NO accepted manual of Hanafi fiqh that says otherwise, if they have one, tell them to send it to me. if they have the statement of one of these Imams supporting their position, tell them to send it to me (in Arabic, not one of their crap translations). So Deo-Brelwis don’t accept the Hanafi position on this, nor adultery, nor apostasy killing nor more importantly Maturidi aqeeda. This is a more minor difference between them and Hanafis. the aqeeda issues are WAY more serious.
I tried to explain it to you before but you got hung up on my ‘tone’: It is like if you ask a Confucian; ‘What does Confucius say about respecting parents’ and he replies ‘The only statement we have from Confucius is that we must respect them and all of his ten most senior students report this and agree with him’. But instead of taking that we go and do a survey of ALL Confucianists, some of whom actually hated Confucius or were actually Buddhists and then say; ‘But what about this such and such guy from seven hundred years after Confucius, he says parents should be slapped around’. It will be hard to make progress in understanding Confucianism in this way and likewise with Hanafis. Unfortunately, most of the groups are trying to confuse the Muslims and in the above analogy, some would go so far as to persuade people that there was no such thing as ‘Confucianism’ and that Confucius was Taoist or something.
So Mu’tamat is there in Hanafi madhab on this issue, dissent is rare, and when it is found, like Abu Yusuf, there is an ‘angle’ (takfiring Abu Hanifa and allied to Abassids). I must be honest and admit I did not check the opinion of Ibn Abideen though if I remember correctly he agrees with Abu Hanifa but he is in any case not reliable as far as I am concerned for the above-mentioned reason that some of his chains are shockingly unreliable.
But ultimately, these types of issues should not be established ‘on authority’ like I blooming well told you at the start. You will always find minority and dissenting voices within any system of thought or school of law: if Deobandis choose to ignore the mu’tamat on this and other issues it is worth asking WHY they would do that, there is usually some epistemic bias or reason. End of the day, you will have to decide for yourself, which is why I robustly encouraged you to think critically about the evidence. You will not be able to please people who believe in argument from authority.
For example, Imam Al Ghazzali, who ALSO insulted Abu Hanifa quite badly (I bet Deobandis forgot to mention that along with Imam Bukhari calling him kaafir, Imam Ahmad’s comments etc), said that anyone who blindly follows Muhammad is then no different from those polytheists or Christians who follow their authorities blindly. So it is good to have authorities to back you up, but ultimately you have to see if what they are saying makes sense. in this case, as I think Sheikh Atabek showed, you have the authority (Abu Hanifa and all of the top Imams apart from one or two who clearly had political reasons and allegiances with Hanablis etc), the Mu’tamat of the madhab, Zahiri Riwayat AND it makes sense from Quran and usool of Fiqh and hadith, in a very accessible way so that one does not need much knowledge to ‘get it’.
Also, this way, you will be more honest and able to persuade people: if someone asks you; ‘why do you not kill gays for public sodomy?’ what do you think is better to say: 1) because Mukhtasar Khuduri says not to (implying that if it said to do it then you would) or 2) because it does not make sense in Islamic ethical and legal theory as I understand it – let me show you how Islamic legal theory is cogent and does not rely on blind following and authorities but rather sound ethical and epistemic principles?
Salam Alaykum,
I am wondering about what I heard one of my Deobandi acquaintances say in a discussion, that the Ottoman rulings and the Deobandi ones are quite in agreement with one another (I was not the one asking about this, it was in the middle of some other discussion where the opponent said that the Deobandi rulings were extremely harsh, the rebuttal being that they were adopted in non-Subcontinental lands as well. Perhaps a detailed discussion of this issue [Subcontinetal Hanafis versus those of Turkey/Syria/Central Asia] may be done at some point?].
Salam alaykum,
There are a number of questions I have about this, but one important related issue is: It may be said that the punishment for rape if perpetrated by an unmarried man is also comparatively slight (only 39 lashes, that is even after 4 witnesses, etc.), and that this would seem to be not enough of a deterrent within Islamic society. What would you say about this?
Who said rape us punished by 39 lashes!?
Rape and adultery or sodomy are unrelated concepts in Islam. Also, who says you need 4 witnesses for rape? I know Salafis say that but it is not in Sunni Islam. Hanafis don’t say that anyway.
Penalty for rape probably comes under spreading corruption in the land. This it would be, like that for terrorism or rebellion, death.
Deobandis make a lot of nonsense statements: it is not possible or desirable to address them all individually (though Brelwis have done a good job). You should just ask them why they went against Abu Hanifa and Mutamat on this and other issues. Bringing in Ottomans is a aimless diversion.
BTW, forget Deobandis, Shah Wali Allah is not even Sunni, let alone Hanafi.
Just ask them what book of aqeedah, usool of hadith and fiqh do they accept. It will then be abundantly clear how ‘Hanafi’ they are. It is enough to know they reject Hanafis usool of hadith.
If I had to say, they are closest to Hanbalis or Salafis, though some are true Hanafis.
Do you have an opinion on the alleged facts in the following article :
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/brinkley/article/Afghanistan-s-dirty-little-secret-3176762.php
That State Department report is quite good and there certainly is anecdotally a culture of homosexuality amongst the Pashtuns – as in it is commonly attributed to them by non-Pashtuns and often they self criticise for it and rent boys are common in Pashtun areas (to what extent this overlaps with paedophilia is difficult to say – when they say ‘boys’ they mean anyone younger than them in that part of the world. It is a dangerous stereotype about any nation if we believe that the majority of them are okay with their children being raped. We need a strong proof for this), you certainly won’t come about Pushtun origin people who glamorise or who are proud of it, and establishing that ‘most’ or a certain percentage of them do it based on anecdotes is rubbish. But certainly Pushtuns are stereotyped for gay sex in South Asia. It seems to be true to some extent, as a rule they are neither proud of it (as a whole) nor is it conceivable that most of them do it. How many do, impossible to establish without the kind of study that no one will ever bother to do.
Generally, homosexuality of any kind is regarded as an anathema in South Asia amongst all groups and religions and no one would dare to SPEAK OUT otherwise, even if they had a penchant for it, even as a group or 10-20% of a group.
In ANY poor country though, you will get a lot of child sexual exploitation from home and abroad, and Afghanistan is very poor, so I’m sure messed up stuff goes on a lot.
But this article is just the dumbest stereotyping – they used to say this about the Japanese – that Shinto told them women were unclean and thus they are ‘all’ gay. Yet to this day, the kind of glamorisation of homosexuality found in the West is absent from Japan, Westernised as it is. Similar tales were told about the Ottomans and had little basis in reality.
I mean, this article is talking about Pushtuns see women are unclean (i.e at menstruation), but buttsexx is fine. Really?!
And Muslims only stone people for adultery is ‘love’ is involved. We all know that is BS. Sadly, these articles, like most Liberal and Conservative tracts, obscure and prevent resolution of a genuine problem by over dramatising it and giving it otherworldly dimensions. I certainly, having spoken to many Muslims and particularly Muslim seminarians, think there is some SITUATIONAL homosexuality, of the kind that occurs say in prison, in Muslim communities, i.e they can’t get at girls so they engage in same sex behaviour in the interim, and I believe the type of gender segregation they practice will for sure lead to problems, but this is going to far, and the people who do this never proffer a religious or theological justification, even to themselves.
@mmmclmru
Thank you for taking the time to write this answer.
” In ANY poor country though, you will get a lot of child sexual exploitation from home and abroad”
And to see the whole picture, you should add that any rich enough country will have specialized services and professional purveyors for rich child molesters (they’re not the ones who will get stereotyped though).
“this article is talking about Pushtuns see women are unclean (i.e at menstruation), but buttsexx is fine. Really?! ”
This kind of stereotype kills two or three birds with one stone : it debases non-Westerners, it ridicules the religious notion of purity, and last not least, despite the apparent disapproval, it spreads the word, it “breaks the taboos”, helping the advance of the LGBQT agenda.
Just excellent analysis as usual!
Totally agree.
@mmmclmru, So I am confused. Is being gay a sin or not in Islam? Are you saying gay sex is halal?