Skip to main content

Is Islam Negated Due to Homosexuality


الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين
وبعد السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

In recent years, I found myself having been required to clarify a specific aspect of the declaration of takfir (excommunication of Islam) over the issue of homosexuality on a number of occasions. I felt it more pertinent and feesible to collate this matter into a simple and retrievable article rather than having to type up an almost article each time I find myself having to discuss the topic, which usually ends up being a long drawn out bickering of which I have no time for. 

Believe it or not, I swear by the Lord of the Worlds, a range of many Muslims, including alleged "salafis" somehow have invented a bid'a theory that homosexuality itself (whether its affection for the same gender, or liwat [the act of penetration]) is a nullifier of Islam. I have literally argued with Muslims who have argued that one cannot be Muslim and gay at the same time. 

First, lets directly address two fundamental matters and their clear Islamic ruling, as this may serve to help clear some ambiguity

1. Does homosexuality negate a person's Islam? If a Muslim were to become homosexual, do they leave Islam and become a kaafir on account of this alone?

The answer, the hukm of Islam, is an EMPHATIC NO.

2. Is viewing homosexuality as something that Islam and the shariah have no problems with true or false? Is viewing homosexuality as acceptable in Islam valid or not?

The answer is an EMPHATIC FALSE and INVALID. Whoever views that homosexuality is legal and acceptable in Islam is an absolute apostate guilty of kufr of istihlaal. 

Now lets break this down!!

Some Muslims have the idea that to merely be a homosexual entails that you have lost your Islam. This is false from a plethroa of angles

Firstly, in the chapters of kufr and apostasy in the books of fiqh from any madhab, there is nothing outlining that homosexuality itself is a nullifier of Islam. 

Secondly, lets take this notion further and include, for arguments sake, the Najdi conceptions to those matters that nullify Islam. If one completely were to absorb the Najdi inderstanding of eman and kufr, even shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab never outlined in his book "Nawaqidul-Islam" (Nullifiers of Islam) the issue of homosexuality as a nullifier. I must report here that homosexuality existed in his time and for centuries before and it was not as uncommon as one would think in arab society. 

Thirdly. The classical view from the salaf and the medieval view are all united upon the concept that homosexuality, like any other sin, is from the kabaa'ir, the major sins but which does not make someone a kaafir (disbeliever).
  
There is not a single shred of evidence, no scholarly ruling in existence that has suggested, from what I have seen, that homosexual acts or the desire, alluded to  apostasy in all of Islamic history. 

There is no proof likewise in the sources of law of the Qur'an or Sunnah. The ignorants will always quote Allah's ayat defaming the horrendous act of evil of homosexuality as a proof and justification for their kufr.

The problem is that the same texts has nothing to do with homosexuality as a sin. What the people of Lut were guilty of, is performing these acts WHILE DENYING AND REJECTING the Prophet of Allah sent to them to warn them of their error. They disbelieved in his message. One could even argue and agree that this punishment Allah gave these criminals was PERFECT JUSTCE and befitting for the crimes they were guilty of i.e. Homosexual indencency.

However there is nothing in the sunnah that suggests that homosexual acts, constitute outright kufr that negates Islam. It mentions hudood punishments. In other words, in Islam, homosexuality is a crime punishable through the Islamic penal code similar to adultry, fornication, or robbery. But it does not mean the commital of these crimes is tantamont to apostasy or kufr in the technical sense. 

Likewise, as usual with all dialectics, there are always two polarizing extremes that tend to be successful in pushing their narrative to the point of making the minority, the people of balanced approaches, towards the enemies side. 

And the opposite extreme of this matter are the liberal (murji) faction of Muslims who tend to view homosexuality as perfectly legal and fine in Islam. They say "its fine to be gay" which is equally errant, if not more so than the first extreme view. For this view actually is a view of kufr, for it plays with the platform of istihlaal, to declare what Allah made haram as legal and to declare what Allah made acceptable and legal as "immoral" and prohibited. 

They usually form their arguments as if by merely believing in the morality Allah outlined on the topic, that being that 
1. this act is a reprehensible sin
2. that is an insideous corruption towards society
3. Punishable by the methods prescribed by His Prophet or his rightly guided companions (let us omit this third piece for muslims living in the west sonce this can only be done under Islamic rulership anyway, and its something that the sunnah generally tries hard to acert punishments, no matter what the sin was)

That somehow viewing your thought in sync with Allah's viewpoint on it is somehow being judgmental, homophobic, and against "free humanity" (freedoms), and human rights.

This sloganeering is just as absurd and ridiculous as other extremist factions and their attempts to demonize Muslims. I don't even feel the need to directly respond to these claims outside of the basic point that these claims are patently false and not from the basis for which conservatively inclined Muslims generate their views from. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Athari Way

The primary function of this brief breakdown is not to highlight the entire Athari creed, rather the purpose here is to summarize the essence of the Athari creed in the three distinct aspects that are being grossly misrepresented by the groups of Kalam theology (Ash'aris primarily along with pseudo Atharis). In short, there are three things that ahlul-hadeeth wal-athar i.e the Atharis, are having their own creed being dictated by other than themselves and being promoted in opposition to the principles of the Athari creed, hence the necessity of this brief summary of our stances. This summary is broken down into three primary issues of concern 1. Do we believe in the "literal" or the "dhaahir". Clarifying the divergence between the two 2. Ithbaat vs Tafweed al-M'anawi 3.  The standard operating procedure of classical Atharis on those issues the sources of evidences have remained silent upon So we will go forward one by one addressing these issues in the most ...

The Breakdown of Madkhali Paradigmatic Thought Processes: Secularist Mindsets

Author: Ali Boriqee Although I'm embarking on the task of deconstructing thoughts predominant of the Madkhali frame of mind, this is not aimed simply at the direct actors of the movement in specific, which include but are not specific to, organizations such as SPUBS and TROID. As members of ahlu-Sunnah wal Jama'ah, followers of the Athari creed, we must realize that the dogmatic features of Madkhali philosophy, which is more predominantly outlined by students of Rab'i al-Madkhali rather than the Shaykh himself, is a frame of mind that transcends partisan actors of the movement. The reason for this is precisely because this frame of mind has remained in the thought processes of those who even proclaim to have disassociated themselves from the partisan (hizbi) aspects to the salafi dawah and have proclaimed to have limited themselves to following " beneficial knowledge ". In other words, Madkhali dogma can and is found within members of the salafi movement who, ...

Exploring the World of "Manhaj" within Madkhali thought and Its Link to Intolerant Fiqh Standards Towards Muslims

There is a vast amount of material found within a certain segment of claimants to salafism originating from sources like SPUBS, Troid, and their partisan affiliates with regards to the topic, or rather the word " manhaj ". What is manhaj? The extremely loose meaning of the term simply means "a way". A much more common usage of the meaning in discussions is typically translated as "methodology". This is linguistically correct. However, there is a more technical meaning to it. Before I embark on providing further information on the topic, I think it is best to explain what was the exact provocation to perform this small endeavor to clarify the meaning of manhaj. There is a fundamental problem with the madkhali dissemination of the meaning of the term "manhaj" and this problem yielded possibly some unexpected errors in their blind followers. This is me giving the madkhali leadership the benefit of the doubt, something bereft from their "manhaj...