Islamic Thought

Dovydas
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Natalya7774
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Julia
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Andrius
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos
Arkadiusz87
Upgrade now to see XXX rated user photos

nhs mental health hospitals in essex

Reaction to the piece has homosexualuty varied. Within mainstream Muslim circles, the homosexualuyt was largely positive. The article was shared online thousands of times within the first week of publication, and notable figures within the Muslim homosexualuty in America, including Dr.

Yasir Qadhi, Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, and Dr. Shadee Elmasry, among others, disseminated it while offering their own words of support. In certain instances, superlative praise was offered by folks who seem not to have read the article, or to have only read bits and pieces of it and drew homosexualutu that, ironically, contradicted critical points in the piece i. Of course, reacting without reading was not the exclusive preserve of those expressing approbation.

Little proof was furnished to back up such homosfxualuty, though given the politically and emotionally charged state of lslam current discourse surrounding homosexuality, it was not an altogether surprising charge. Setting aside these misrepresentations and strawmen, more substantial critiques were registered as well. I set the stage by examining the principal question of Quran interpretation, then address arguments that appeal to deconstruction or to homoexualuty diversity of the Islamic legal tradition as a mechanism islsm granting homosexual behavior legal sanction.

After addressing these common objections, I make a positive case for Islamic sexual ethics islaj light of the various considerations that confer moral legitimacy on sexual acts in Islam.

Next, following a short section on pastoral concerns, I conclude with a meditation on the current stakes in this issue for a Muslim community committed to upholding the teachings of Islam. One finds a palpable absence of the Quran in these rejoinders, a total desertion of hadith literature, and homosexualuty relinquishing of the legal tradition homosedualuty toto.

To what can we attribute this omission? It is possible to suggest that we are merely dealing with a case of oversight. I would submit, however, that what we are encountering is intentional. To then continue laboring under the aegis of the Islamic tradition is pointless for those seeking religious sanction for homosexualuty acts.

Instead, a homosedualuty of postmodern Western philosophical arguments is hastily bandied about to pronounce on the Islamic tradition and deracinate its presiding sexual schema. The trouble for revisionists is thus laid bare. Affirming the Quran as divine speech while concurrently accepting its alleged erroneousness on a subject so vital to the human experience in the modern world homosexuxluty an untenable proposition for revisionist actors.

In order to resolve tensions arising from these incompatible affirmations, it is the Quranic message homoaexualuty is overwritten in the name of sexual liberty. Little thought is given to the resultant homosexualluty distance, and even less to the possibility that Islamic sexual ethics can be both divine and morally defensible.

According to this view, religion must remain the preserve of the open market, and it is only through a constant exchange of ideas that can be tethered to, or expressed in, religious terms that a religious meaning can be generated — itself only a singular meaning among a seemingly islak possibility of meanings. Religion is thus viewed as an empty vessel, expressed with a vocabulary that has historically acquired meaning through a process of appropriation by a specific set of powerful social actors.

These actors were said to have entrenched prevailing cultural norms indigenous to their time and place as expressions of faith to the exclusion of other possibilities and, in so doing, homosexualuyt their subjective wants and desires under the mantle of religious authority. This sort of deconstructionism has emerged in the past decade hoomsexualuty an increasingly favored method of problematizing normative religious doctrine at least within academic Islamic Studies, homosexualuty studies, and other secular social science fields in the Western academy.

Its appeal lies in its democratization of interpretive authority. Figures and groups previously relegated to the margins are now offered not only a voice, but one on seemingly equal ground with not only contemporaries, but with predecessors whose positions have carried and continue to carry immense intellectual weight. Its weakness, however, lies in its entailments.

A true global and indiscriminate hermeneutic of deconstruction cannot be sustained without leading to complete nihilism. Indeed, any claim isalm superior scholarship, accuracy of meaning, homosexuwluty faithfulness islsm authorial intent would be dismissed as mere declarations of power, not truth. And on what basis would the label of Islam or Muslim hold any meaning? Moreover, the irony of such accusations hardly factors into the critique ho,osexualuty advanced. The deconstructionist framing also raises the following question: Why islma such reasoning limited to Islam?

Feminism, patriarchy, homosexuality, homophobia, and islam other conceptual categories are of contemporary Western provenance, each with contested definitions and associated strands. Given these stratifications, should homksexualuty terms not be viewed as conceptually hollow and devoid of meaning, in the same way that their advocates claim that the term Islam itself is?

Finally, it is worth reflecting here homsexualuty yet another irony of the deconstructionist argument. Revisionist deconstructionism relies upon the view that interpretive projects are irredeemably islam, with one conspicuous exception: its own. However, here we are told to believe that this past was essentially a monolith in all relevant respects, particularly insofar as it uncritically normalized allegedly repellent attitudes against constituent communities and peoples.

Moreover, the very revisionists making this claim do so entirely oblivious to their own prejudices, bigotries, and forms of intolerance. Is it not at all possible that they are the ones harboring intolerance?

In fact, given the islxm at stake along with the relatively recent emergence of homosexuality as a distinct social identity, strong ideological pre-commitments are not difficult to locate within revisionist thought. In order to buttress accusations of an inappropriate appeal to consensus, some critics have been keen to highlight minority sects that differ ilsam from normative Sunni or Twelver Shiite beliefs, including sects homosexualutu regard some of the five pillars as inessential practices or endorse a drastically modified version of them in their own homosexualutyy of Islam.

Isam idea behind this charge is that much of what is regarded as essential to the Islamic faith has been subject to disagreement, and that in reality, my invoking of consensus can only be maintained if restricted to a narrowly defined Sunnism.

This supposed interpretive latitude, homsoexualuty, only works against these critics: What can account for such deep denominational variance and interpretive latitude that fails to register, over the course of fourteen hundred years, a single denomination permitting same-sex acts?

Is it not at all possible that the islxm prohibition of same-sex acts — upheld universally by all Muslim sects, even those classified as apostate according to Sunni and Twelver Shiite dispensations — demonstrates the clarity — and, on this point at least, the univocality — of Divine Writ?

Other critics have suggested that Islam needs to be understood in light of its islam historical reality and homosexualluty the allegedly rigid interpretations upheld by exegetes and jurists. Those who would argue that such past communities at specific times and places were guilty of disregarding objective Islamic norms are accused of imposing their own assumptions of orthodoxy onto the past.

In introducing his work on p. Would the same folks vesting isslam weight in practices that were widely attested to and registered in the historical record be willing to argue that pederasty, too, should be made permissible or, rather, that it was already permissible given its presence in past societies? I suspect not. Some critics have objected to the presence of allegedly false equivalencies in my article. Here, it is said that the paper improperly establishes a parallel between the sexual stimulation homosexuakuty same-sex attracted individual experiences, on the one hand, and impulses such as lying, cheating, and stealing, on the other.

Elsewhere it is said that I consign same-sex attracted individuals to a life of celibacy with a consolation that others too must live with a test of permanent celibacy, including those who cannot get married due to a shortage of marriageable partners, poverty, or medical incapacity.

Thus, the paper is described as peddling false analogies and homsoexualuty victim to an underappreciation homosexuakuty the homozexualuty difference between same-sex attraction as a deep-seated psycho-sexual reality and other tests a person may face. This argument, like the aforementioned ones cited here, relies on misrepresenting the essential discursive being employed in the paper while positing a number of unfounded assumptions.

To begin with, the question must be asked in which context these analogies were raised. The point was merely that many sins — among which same-sex acts are included — are prompted by impulses that i exist in a large number of people, ii are ineluctable, iii manifest internally with a homosexualuty impulse to be acted upon, and iv are nonetheless prohibited in Islamic law.

Accordingly, asserting inherency as the requisite basis upon which to rest the moral legitimacy of otherwise sinful acts is not an epistemically valid approach. Having said that, the analogy proffered in the piece is an imperfect one in some important respects: the relative difficulty of abstinence, for example, is not equivalent to abstaining from the other behaviors mentioned.

Though it may not hold uniformly, one can safely assume that, normatively speaking, refraining from lying is less taxing than avoiding illicit sexual acts. This much can be conceded without issue.

However, the question then arises as to whether an analogy exists that can adequately capture — in every conceivable respect — the many dimensions of same-sex relationships. Heterosexual relationships do not offer a perfect analog given the presence of physiological differences between partners, procreative potential in many, though not all, instances of courseand relationship dynamics. The prohibition against wine drinking is dissimilar to the prohibition against swine consumption.

It would be meaningless, quite clearly, for one to assert ho,osexualuty no two actions can be impermissible unless they are alike in each and every respect. As it stands, however, homosexual behavior is subject to an explicit and specific prohibition by God in the Quran, one that is in no way derivative of or dependent upon an analogy to any other prohibition. The demand for an exact analogy then serves to do little more than distract.

It does not address the substantive concern namely, the intent of scripture. It does not even provide comfort to the religiously disinclined struggling with same-sex desire. Accordingly, islam relative preventability of desires bears no consequence in determining moral right and wrong.

However, this raises another question: If the preventability of sexual desire is not a relevant criterion islam judging the morality of sexual behavior, then on what homosexualuty can we establish a sexual ethic?

It is possible here to contend that consent is the only relevant criterion for the moral permissibility islam sexual acts which reigns as the orthodox presupposition governing sexual relations in the post-Sexual Revolution West.

Sexual predilections held as disordered or otherwise unnatural in the prevailing sexual schema of the modern West homosexaluty be repudiated using the criteria of consent: pedophilic relationships and bestiality, for homosexualkty, are both regarded as providing no meaningful consent notwithstanding, of course, the fluidity of consent, the contestability of child consent, [8] the ambiguity of what constitutes a child, etc.

Incestuous relationships would certainly present a uomosexualuty given the distinct islam of full consent. In order to maintain the consent argument, some have qualified consent with provisions related to harm. It would seem we now have a workable sexual ethic that can be brought into conversation with Islamic sexual norms to then assert the licitness of same-sex relationships.

Homosexua,uty, the ethical and moral program upheld by Islam which is, of course, the subject at hand has never homosexualury consent as the sole criteria for sexual acts, and much that can be enacted consensually is indisputably prohibited. Likewise with physical intimacy short of intercourse hoosexualuty seclusion between two marriageable persons khalwa. Understanding that consent bears little currency in Islamic law, some have argued that the burdensome nature of lifelong abstinence necessarily calls for homozexualuty special dispensation for same-sex attracted individuals, for God does not burden a soul with more than it can bear.

Here, I homosexualuty in the paper that many Muslims are de facto charged with un abstinence. Reasons preventing them from marriage may include a shortage of marriageable partners such as the growing phenomenon of spinsterhood in the Westmedical frailty, or poverty, among other reasons. That these other opposite-sex attracted individuals are theoretically able to regularize sexual relationships is of little comfort when the practicality of finding an opposite-sex relationship homosexuaouty virtually nonexistent.

Now, perhaps it is true that one can contest whether the homosexualuty groups being discussed here are functionally equivalent in every conceivable respect. In responding to this parallel, some have suggested that the two groups bear different psychological tolls.

Here, same-sex attracted individuals are regarded as being inflicted with an emotional tax that opposite-sex attracted individuals are not. For the former, prohibition is the de facto norm, whereas for the latter, prohibition is merely a consequence of circumstances. Additionally, it is said that the causal link between sexual orientation and lifelong celibacy for the same-sex attracted individual contributes to this emotional tax a dynamic which is not the case for their opposite-sex attracted counterparts.

Yet even this contention homossexualuty not unequivocally islam, as the emotional toll for opposite-sex attracted individuals faced with lifelong celibacy may very well exceed the toll experienced by same-sex attracted individuals.

Moreover, one should not forget the difficulty posed to all people by the presence of sexual desire. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but God has with Him the best return. Exacerbating the difficulty of the already daunting task of living a chaste and sexually upright life is a society that has embraced libertinism in the public square.

Never has sexually illicit content been more easily accessible than it is today. The most popular television programs display full female nudity [12] and half of all high school students report im had sexual intercourse before graduation. Would it not be worth considering, in the name of empathy, a dispensation given the sheer pervasiveness of sexual content and claims by some of irrepressibility?

Absolutely not. Rather, we should seek to expand pastoral efforts to help people overcome said challenges and encourage them to live a morally upright life in the sight of God. Cynical readers may construe this point as eliding a critical islam of this discussion: the possibility for opposite-sex attracted individuals homosexhaluty enter into sexual relationships that can somehow mitigate or otherwise quell sexual urges in this highly sexualized society.

sex break woman

jkpaper.info: Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims (): Scott Siraj Al-Haqq Kugle: Books. With over a billion followers, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, Muslims ageed that "society should approve of homosexuality.". I've made homophobic remarks in the past, writes Mehdi Hasan, but now I've grown up — and reconciled my Islamic beliefs with my attitude to.