Revisiting the Issue of Islam and the Nursing of Adults

EXPOSING THE MISINFORMATION OF MUSLIM CRITICS

Sam Shamoun

Part Two

PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Muslim authors have not been content to discuss the topic of the paper, Islam and the Nursing of Adults, but decided to use the occasion to also assault the Apostle Paul, by inventing charges of "hidden homosexual desires" against him, a completely unrelated issue. They claim to use the same methodology that I allegedly used approaching the topic of nursing in Islam to attack the Apostle Paul. The Muslim polemicists, however, failed to demonstrate any faulty methodology on my part as has been shown in detail in the first part of this response. In the following it will be demonstrated that their claims regarding the Apostle Paul are based on a source that is unreliable regarding the topic at hand. Finally, since the Muslim authors are so eager to discuss "homosexuality", we will also have a look at some passages from Islamic sources that have a bearing on the topic.

The authors bring up the issue of Paul and circumcision, which we have already addressed here:

We also recommend J.P. Holding's article since it deals specifically with Paul circumcising Timothy:

Here is another series of articles which touch on a similar subject:

So there is no need for us to repeat ourselves. The foregoing articles also show how Muhammad broke the Law of Moses and was therefore guilty before God.

Here we would like to deal with the following quote from A.N. Wilson:

A. N. Wilson further explains that

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually 'cut you...off from Christ'.^[17]

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! ... Since we are aware of Paul's intense opposition to circumcision no matter what the reasons are, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates the hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, ...

Before we turn to the main question whether Wilson's statements are even historically accurate, we want to make a couple of comments regarding the conclusions drawn by the Muslims authors. Would they similarly conclude that every mohel was a homosexual, trying to live out his fantasies through performing religiously mandated operations? Is every male gynecologist a voyeur, performing his duties because of some hidden fantasies? Is every female gynecologist really a lesbian wanting to touch as many female sexual organs as possible?

The way the Muslim authors are arguing is ludicrous. Professionals oftentimes have to perform acts that are not proper for others. There is nothing reprehensible about it. Even if Wilson had been correct with the above description - but he is not - Paul would simply have acted as a religious leader performing a religiously prescribed operation. It is revealing that their conclusion includes the phrase "no matter what the reasons are". Obviously, it DOES matter what the reasons are when evaluating an action. Why did Paul oppose the circumcision of his assistant Titus (and of other gentile converts to faith in Jesus) but circumcised his assistant Timothy? These questions are essential and are discussed in the links provided above. The authors, however, simply disregard the explicitly stated reasons and replace them with their unfounded speculation. They could not find any evidence that Paul ever practiced, endorsed or promoted homosexuality. The very fact that all they could do was to speculate about "HIDDEN desires" exposes how weak their case truly is.

The presented Muslim polemic is a completely unnatural interpretation of the Biblical text. In contrast, my interpretation of the Islamic traditions regarding the nursing of adults was the natural understanding without any need to twist meanings of words or speculate about hidden motivations. Even if the speculations of the Muslim authors had contained any substance, their whole case crumbles when we examine the basis of their argument, i.e. Wilson's claims about the Jewish method of circumcision at the time of Paul.

The first problem with the authors appeal to Wilson is that there is no evidence that sucking the blood from the penis was practiced during Paul’s time:

After scrubbing and putting on rubber gloves, the mohel uses a probe to lift the priah, underlying membrane, into the orlah, foreskin. He determines the amount to be removed and fixes a clamp in the correct place. The priah and orlah are cut with one sweep along the flat edge of the clamp. A special knife called an izmail is used. Traditionally, the knife is sharp on both edges to eliminate the possibility of causing the child pain. Lastly, blood is drawn, metzitzah, a therapeutic prescription FROM THE TALMUDIC PERIOD. A sterile dressing with topical anesthetic is applied. When performed by a competent mohel the entire procedure, which flows as one continuous motion, takes less than a minute. The excised foreskin is buried in the earth. (http://www.cantork.com/ceremony.htm; bold and capital emphasis ours)

CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW
By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.

Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant
The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.

Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.

This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.

Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure:
No other feature was added to the religious ritual UNTIL ABOUT 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced.

Periah: The laying of bare of the glans
After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised.

This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remainding foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible. [Italics mine]

Metzitzeh: (Mezzizza/Mizizah) The sucking of blood from the wound
DURING THE TALMUDIC PERIOD (500-625 A.D.), A THIRD STEP WAS ADDED TO THE ORTHODOX CIRCUMCISION RITUAL. It was not universally adopted by all Jewish groups, but became a practice of the more Orthodox groups. This third step was called "Metzitzah". During "Metzitzah", the mohel takes the now badly bleeding penis into his mouth and sucks the blood from the wounded pant. This was most probably adopted to collapse the major blood vessels to stem bleeding and to extract any induced bacteria from the wound and blood system. In effect, it often introduced infection, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, with very serious and tragic consequence, as reported throughout history. More modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant's penis for suction of the blood when performing metzitzah. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated. (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/; capital and underlined emphasis ours)

And:

The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).^6,15,21 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.²⁹ This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.¹¹ In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead. (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/; bold emphasis ours)

This in itself is sufficient to cast doubt on the authors’ ability to research the issues carefully in order to avoid such gross anachronistic mistakes.

Furthermore, if we were to stoop to the level of the authors, we could attack them for being dishonest as they attacked me for being ‘perverted.’ After all, why is it that they claim that Paul practiced something that wasn't instituted until the 6th century A.D.!? Of course, we will not make such accusations since it is possible that the authors were just misinformed by using a source that is unreliable on this topic. However, notice that they did not extend to me this same benefit of the doubt by their conclusions that I was ‘perverted.’

Secondly, even if the practice was being observed during Paul’s day, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was being observed on adult converts. Nor does it mean that Paul personally circumcised Timothy, as the authors erroneously assume. Now the authors may object here and argue that the text says Paul circumcised Timothy, cf. Acts 16:3.

If so, the authors would be supplying more evidence for their inability to understand context since Luke uses similar wording elsewhere:

"Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day THEY CAME TO CIRCUMCISE THE CHILD. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, ‘No; he shall be called John.’ Luke 1:57-60 ESV

Accordingly, we would be forced to conclude that Elizabeth’s neighbors and relatives were the ones who actually performed the circumcision on John. Messianic believer Dr. David H. Stern writes in regards to Acts 16:3:

Sha’ul ... took him and did a b’rit-milah, which can imply that he had an expert mohel ("circumciser") perform the operation. While Sha’ul had both Jewish ritual knowledge (22:3) and at least some manual dexterity (18:3), circumcising an adult is not a simple operation and normally requires a specialist. (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Clarksville, Maryland; Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996], p. 283)

Hence, Luke’s wording no more proves that Paul actually did the circumcising than Luke 1:57-60 imply that John was circumcised by his neighbors and relatives!

Third, in their zeal to discredit both the Apostle Paul and myself the authors failed to take into consideration how Wilson’s quote affects their beliefs as Muslims. If Wilson is correct, then this means that Zechariah, his son John the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus all had a mohel place their penises in his mouth in order to suck their blood! This would mean that the Apostles, whom the Quran calls Muslims, also had their penises placed in the mouth of a mohel during their circumcision.

Since the authors believe that all these men were devout God-fearing Muslims, with some of them being commissioned as prophets and messengers of God, we would like them to resolve the following problems:

1. Seeing that you quoted A. N. Wilson who claims that sucking blood from a circumcised penis was practiced by the Jews during the time of Paul, can you please explain to us how this affects your belief in the moral uprightness of Zechariah, John, Jesus and the apostles.
2. Does this mean that these men whom the Quran calls Muslims were homosexuals? Since you used this to prove that Paul was a homosexual, then you are forced to be consistent and claim the same for these men also.
3. If you claim that this was the practice of the Jews back then and doesn’t reflect negatively on these true men of God, then why should it reflect negatively on Paul?
4. You may try to claim that Jesus’ and John’s case were quite different since they were babes and could not prevent the mohel from performing his duty. This still doesn’t help you in the least since Zechariah and Mary would have been present at the ceremony and could have stopped the mohel from performing the sucking. In light of this, can you produce the data that shows that these righteous men and women of God objected to this practice? (This assumes, of course, that Wilson is correct that the practice of sucking blood was observed at this time, which we have shown isn’t the case at all.)
5. Doesn’t this prove that you will say and do anything to defend your perverted religion, even use arguments that attack and undermine the integrity and purity of God’s messengers?

Finally, Paul was one of the leading spokespersons condemning homosexuality and lesbianism as abominable practices in the eyes of God:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27 ESV

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB

Interestingly, the next section comes from Paul’s letter TO HIS YOUNG PROTÉGÉ TIMOTHY:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV

In light of the foregoing how could one even accuse Paul of practicing homosexuality when he was one of the leading voices that spoke against it, condemning it in his epistles, and taught that those indulging in such practices would not inherit the kingdom of God? It is quite obvious that the authors’ aim was to smear the holy image of the risen Lord Jesus’ beloved Apostle. Yet their smear campaign is about to backfire against them.

ISLAM, HOMOSEXUALITY AND OTHER PERVERSIONS

In one of our previous responses to MENJ and his crew, we had issued the following warning:

Note to Bismikaallahuma and other Muslim polemicists: Further attacks on the person, life, words and deeds of the Apostle Paul are subject to the same rebuttal approach as in this article. We will first carefully explain the meaning of the Biblical texts and answer the attack on his person and authority. In a second part, any criteria used against Paul, will be applied to Muhammad as well. Anyone who knows the biography of both of these men, knows already that the outcome of such a comparison will not be to the liking of the Muslims. Keeping this in mind, you may save us a lot of work, and yourself and your Prophet a lot of embarrassment by refraining from attacking Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle of God. (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/hypocrite.htm)

Since our warning has fallen on deaf ears we have no other choice but to apply their method of assaulting the holy Apostle against their unholy "prophet" Muhammad. I myself do not necessarily believe all of the below; it is written only to illustrate how using the methods and approaches of the Muslim authors will lead to very undesirable results for their own prophet and religion.

Employing the logic that the authors used in attacking the apostle Paul, one could make use of some Islamic traditions to build a case that Muhammad had homosexual tendencies. One such tradition is the following taken from a newsgroup posting:

فى يوم خرج محمد إلى السوق فوجد زاهرا وكان يحبه فأحتضنه من الخلف
فقال له زاهر اطلقنى من انت؟ فقال له محمد انا من يشترى العبيد ورفض ان
يطلقه فلما عرف زاهر أنه محمد صار يمكن ظهره من صدر محمد

السيرة الحلبية ج 3 ص 441 وفتحي رضوان في (الثائر الأعظم) ص 140

Translation:
One day, Muhammad went to the market, there he found Zahir, whom he liked, so he hugged him from behind. Zahir said: let go of me, who are you? Muhammad told him: I'm the slave trader (literally, I'm the one who buys the slaves), and refused to let go of him so when Zahir knew it was Muhammad, he drew (stuck) his back closer to Muhammad's chest.

Source:
Al Seera Al Halabya (Muhammad's Biography) by Al Halabya, volume 3, p. 441 and Fathy Rdwan in his book Al Tha'er al A'azam (The greatest rebel) (Quoted as found at http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/20756.htm)

Muhammad would also invite young boys to see him wash his private parts:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Whenever Allah's Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, "So that he might wash his private parts with it.") (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152; see also Numbers 153-154)

Now the authors may accuse us of being perverted for even seeing any homosexual overtones in this tradition. We would respond by saying the same is true of their reading of Acts 16:3, which only exposes how sick and filthy their minds are. As they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Other sick practices of Muhammad include having his young child bride wipe semen off his clothes:

Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229)

Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231; see also Number 232)

Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233)

Not only did nine year old Aisha have to marry and live with an over fifty year old Muhammad (making him old enough to be her grandfather) but she also had to wipe semen stains from her elderly husband's clothes while still a young girl!

Other traditions state that Muhammad would actually allow young boys to suck his tongue and he would suck the tongue of others. For instance, in "Musnad Ahmad," Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan," we read:

Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy, and narrated by Mua’wiya who said,

"I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire). (Source)

الرسول يمص لسان الحسن و شفته

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏هاشم بن القاسم ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏حريز ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عبد الرحمن بن أبي عوف الجرشي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏معاوية ‏ ‏قال ‏‏رأيت رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يمص لسانه ‏ ‏أو قال شفته ‏ ‏يعني ‏ ‏الحسن بن علي ‏ ‏صلوات الله عليه ‏ ‏وإنه ‏ ‏لن يعذب لسان أو شفتان مصهما رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم

مسند أحمد .. مسند الشاميين .. حديث معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه

From the Syrian Biography of Muhammad written by Al-Amin Al-Ma’moun, Chapter Title: "The first people to believe in the prophet."

In mentioning the 10 specific qualities of the prophet, Al Zamakhshari mentioned that the prophet took charge of naming Ali and feeding him many days from his blessed saliva and having Ali SUCK ON THE PROPHET’S TONGUE.

For it was narrated by Fatimah Bint Asad, the mother of Ali – may Allah be pleased with her – who related that when she gave birth to her son, it was the prophet who named him Ali and the prophet spat in Ali’s mouth THEN ALLOWED HIM TO SUCK ON HIS TONGUE till he fell asleep.

She also said, "On a later day we requested a wet nurse for him (Ali) but he refused her breast so we called for Muhammad – pbuh – WHO PLACED HIS TONGUE IN ALI’S MOUTH and he fell asleep. This is the way it was as Allah willed it." (Source)

الرسول يمص لسان علي بن أبي طالب و يغذيه من ريقه المبارك

وفي خصائص العشرة للزمخشري أن النبي صل الله عليه وسلم تولى تسميته بعلي وتغذيته أياما من ريقه المبارك بمصه لسانه فعن فاطمة بنت أسد أم علي رضي الله تعالى عنها أنا قالت لما ولدته سماه عليا وبصق في فيه ثم إنه ألقمه لسانه فما زال يمصه حتى نام قالت فلما كان من الغد طلبنا له مرضعة فلم يقبل ثدي أحد فدعونا له محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم فألقمه لسانه فنام فكان كذلك ما شاء الله عز وجل هذا كلامه فليتأمل.

السيرة الحلبية في سيرة الأمين المأمون .. باب أول الناس إيمانا به صلى الله عليه و سلم

Muhammad also appeared naked before a man:

Narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ismail, narrated by Ibrahim Ibn Yahya Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abad Al Madany, narrated by Abu Yahya Ibn Muhammad, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Muslim Al Zuhri, narrated by Urwah Ibn Al Zubair narrated by Aisha who said,

"Zaid Ibn Haritha came to Medina while the prophet – pbuh – was in my house. He (Zaid) came and knocked on the door so the prophet rose up and went towards him naked, dragging his garment behind him. By Allah I had not seen the prophet naked before this or after it (in front of people). Then the prophet embraced Zaid and kissed him."

Abu Issa stated that this was a sound hadith, THOUGH STRANGE, and that Al Zuhri was only known for (sound) hadith. (Sunan Al Tirmidhi, Hadith Number, 4412, Volume Title: "The Book of Permission and Manners of the Prophet," Entry Title: "What is Related About Kissing and Embracing". (Source)

محمد عريان و يحضن و يقبل الرجال

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن إسمعيل ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إبراهيم بن يحيى بن محمد بن عباد المدني ‏ ‏حدثني ‏ ‏أبي يحيى بن محمد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن إسحق ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن مسلم الزهري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عروة بن الزبير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قالت ‏ ‏قدم ‏ ‏زيد بن حارثة ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏ورسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏في بيتي فأتاه فقرع الباب فقام إليه رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏عريانا يجر ثوبه والله ما رأيته عريانا قبله ولا بعده فاعتنقه وقبله ‏ ‏‏قال ‏ ‏أبو عيسى ‏ ‏هذا ‏ ‏حديث حسن غريب ‏ ‏لا نعرفه من حديث ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏إلا من هذا الوجه

سنن الترمذي .. كتاب الإستئذان و الآداب عن رسول الله .. باب ما جاء في المعانقة و القبلة

Muhammad went so far as to claim that there are young boys awaiting the believers in Paradise:

And round them shall go boys of theirs as if they were hidden pearls. S. 52:24 Shakir

Round about them shall go youths never altering in age, With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink; S. 56:17-18 Shakir

And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls. S. 76:19 Shakir

We wonder, what will Muslims be doing with these young boys, hold hands and sing together? It is passages such as these that led some Muslims to argue that homosexuality and pederasty would be permitted in Paradise. For instance, New York Times columnist Judith Miller, while commenting on the reason Egyptian professor and columnist Farag Foda was assassinated, wrote:

"About two weeks before his murder, he mocked what passed for intellectual discourse among Islamists by citing a recent sermon by Egypt's most popular preacher, Abdel Hamid Kishk, a blind sheikh who constantly attacked both the government and its official religious establishment. Kishk had been telling his audience that Muslims who entered paradise would enjoy ETERNAL ERECTIONS and the company of young boys draped in earrings and necklaces. Some of the ulema, the religious scholars at al-Azhar, the government's seat of Islamic learning had disagreed. Yes, they said, men in paradise would have erections, BUT MERELY PROTRACTED, NOT PERPETUAL. Other experts disputed the possibility of pederasty in paradise. ‘Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?’ Foda asked in a column in October magazine. ‘The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer,’ while Muslim scholars, he wrote ‘in sadness and pain,’ were worried about sex in paradise. In a column published just before he was killed, Foda reported that the Tunisian government had videotaped militant Islamic leaders on their prayer rugs, unwilling to await paradise, making love to beautiful women here on earth. Meanwhile, Egyptian militants in Assyut were ordering believers not to eat eggplants and squash because of their resemblance to sexual organs. ‘The Groups of Darkness are obsessed with sex,’ he wrote." (Miller, God Has Ninety-Nine Names [A Touchstone Book, published by Simon & Schuster, 1997], pp. 26-27; bold emphasis ours)

Please note carefully here that not all of the experts disagreed with Kishk’s views regarding the permissibility of pederasty or that men will have eternal erections in Allah’s sexcapade called Paradise.

And:

Abul-Ala Maari said that homosexuality will be permissible in paradise. He based this opinion on Sura al-Waqi‘a 56:17-23: "Round about them are male youths of freshness ... and there will be huris (‘beautiful companions with large and lustrous eyes, like pearls well-guarded’)" ...

"Abul-Ala said: ‘If wine is prohibited in this world and allowed in paradise, the same will happen with homosexuality’ (Risala al-ghufran by al-Maarri and Khawater Muslim fi al-mas’ala al-Jinsiyya by Muhammad Jalal Kishk)." (True Guidance (Part 4), An Introduction to Quranic Studies [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 122)

These passages may have also been the impetus behind Muslim men desiring to sleep with young boys, and the reason why others felt free to express their homosexual desires in writing. Professor Philip K. Hitti writes:

"The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace. The white slaves (Mamluk) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenians and Berbers. Certain slaves were eunuchs (khisyan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations. A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys." (Hitti, History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, revised tenth edition, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; ISBN: 0-333-63142-0 paperback], p. 341; bold emphasis ours)

Writing on the reasons for the collapse of the Abbasid Empire, Hitti says:

Then there were the social and moral forces of disintegration. The blood of the conquering element became in course of centuries diluted with that of the conquered, with a subsequent loss of their dominating position and qualities. With the decay of the Arab national life, Arab stamina and morale broke down. Gradually the empire developed into an empire of the conquered. The large harems, made possible by the countless number of eunuchs, the girl and THE BOY SLAVES (ghilman), who contributed most to the degradation of womenhood AND DEGENERATION OF MANHOOD; the unlimited concubines and the number of half-brothers and half-sisters in the imperial household with their unavoidable jealousies and intrigues; the luxurious scale of high living with the emphasis on wine and song - all these and other similar forces sapped the vitality of family life and inevitably produced the persistently feeble heirs to the throne. The position of these feeble heirs was rendered still more feeble by their interminable disputes over a right of succession which was never definitely determined. (Ibid., 485; bold and underlined emphasis ours)

Interestingly, the Quran seems to suggest that lesbianism will also be tolerated! Compare the following citations:

Those who bear the power and those around Him celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe: Our Lord! Thou embracest all things in mercy and knowledge, therefore grant protection to those who turn (to Thee) and follow Thy way, and save them from the punishment of the hell: Our Lord! and make them enter the gardens of perpetuity which Thou hast promised to them and those who do good of their fathers AND THEIR WIVES and their offspring, surely Thou are the Mighty, the Wise. S. 40:7-8 Shakir

Whoever does an evil, he shall not be recompensed (with aught) but the like of it, and whoever does good, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, and he is a believer, these shall enter the garden, in which they shall be given sustenance without measure. S. 40:40 Shakir

Lo! those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight, Happy because of what their Lord hath given them, and (because) their Lord hath warded off from them the torment of hell-fire. (And it is said unto them): Eat and drink in health (as a reward) for what ye used to do, Reclining on ranged couches. And we WED them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. And they who believe and whose seed follow them in faith, We cause their seed to join them (there), and We deprive them of nought of their (life's) work. Every man is a pledge for that which he hath earned. And We provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire. There they pass from hand to hand a cup wherein is neither vanity nor cause of sin. S. 52:17-23 Pickthall

Verily, for THE RIGHTEOUS is decreed a triumph - Walled gardens and grapevines, , And over-flowing cups. Therein they will hear no vain discourse nor lying; A recompense from thy Lord - a gift amply sufficient - S. 78:31-36 Sher Ali

Islamic traditions unashamedly say that men will have perpetual sex with these beautiful wide-eyed virgins:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."

Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53)

Muhammad reported that some (persons) stated with a sense of pride and some discussed whether there would be MORE MEN IN PARADISE OR MORE WOMEN. It was upon this that Abu Huraira reported that Abu'l Qasim (the Holy Prophet) (may peace be upon him) said: The (members) of the first group to get into Paradise would have their faces as bright as full moon during the night, and the next to this group would have their faces as bright as the shining stars in the sky, AND EVERY PERSON WOULD HAVE TWO WIVES and the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and THERE WOULD BE NONE WITHOUT A WIFE IN PARADISE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6793; see also 6797)

Narrated Anas ibn Malik

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "In Paradise the believer will be given such and such power to conduct sexual intercourse." He was asked whether he would be capable of that and replied that he would be given the capacity of a hundred men. Tirmidhi transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 1482, ALIM CD-Rom Version)

Here also is Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37:

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

<In Paradise, the believer will be given such and such strength for women.>

Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,

<He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN)> At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said,

<The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.>

Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, "In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9 (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: September 2000], pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And also his comments on Surah 78:33:

<And vineyards, and Kawa'ib Atrab,> meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and others have said,

<Kawa'ib> "This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age ..." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 10 (Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur'an) [First Edition: September 2000], pp. 333-334; bold and capital emphasis ours)

This is in marked contrast to God’s true word, the Holy Bible:

"So Jesus said to them, ‘The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36 NET Bible

Reading these statements from the hadiths along with the passages of the Quran, one can safely infer that women will also have sex with the houris as well as with their husbands.

We break it down so that our readers can see more clearly the implication of these statements:

1. All (not just some, not just the male) believers who do good will enter Paradise.
2. In Paradise, there will be young maidens and boys, fruits, meats, rivers of wine, honey, milk and water for all the believers to enjoy.
3. Since women believers will also enter Paradise this means that they too will engage in "joyful" pleasures with young maidens.

The following author presents the possible reasons why Muhammad would permit such perversions:

To make his doctrine on sex more attractive to his followers, Muhammad assured them of having in Paradise a multiple of doe-eyed virgin houris with whom they would have sex ad infinitum. For those men who would not be interested in females, he made a different provision for them. They would be attended in Paradise, he told them, by young boys, graced with eternal youth, who to the beholders' eyes, will seem like sprinkled pearls. When they would gaze upon the scene (a reference, perhaps, to human anatomy), said he, they would behold a kingdom blissful and glorious (human anatomy, again?). The boys shall be arrayed in garments of fine green silk and rich brocade, and adorned with bracelets of silver. Muhammad himself would give them pure and holy wine, mixed with camphor, to drink 76:19-21). In their state of drunkenness, those boys would be providing complete sexual pleasures to their pious masters, a tantalizing concept that induced many homosexual pagan men to accept Islam without having any regard to the consequences they were likely to face, before their death, in this world.

From the Quran, we have learned much about the Paradise and the amenities it holds for its residents. It width is alone that of the whole of the heavens and the earth (3:133). It has everything to provide a blissful life to all of its occupants. It has more fruits than all the fruits our whole earth has; it has neither rain nor heat of the sun. It does not experience storms nor does it have the snow of the winter (76:13). By virtue of the controlled climate that the Paradise has, neither its present occupants need now nor its future inhabitants would need any homes to live within. All of its present occupants, prophets Idris and Isa (Jesus Christ to the Christians), being two among many others, have all along been living in the Paradise's open sky. For comfort, they wear silk robes (76:12). They spend their time reclining on soft couches, shadowed by tree branches, from which always hang clusters of fruit (76:14).

Paradise's inhabitants partake their meals from silver dishes; they have large silver goblets for drinking not only the purest water but also the delectable wine (47:15); its measure being dependent on the drinker's wish (76:16). No matter the quantity of wine one consumes, he never gets drunk. Instead, he feels a soothing sensation that makes him yearn for sex. If the blessed soul wishes for a female, a doe-eyed virgin houri presents herself for copulation. On the other hand, if another soul wishes for anal sex, he will find a boy, graced with eternal youth and appearing like sprinkled pearls, ready to satisfy carnal lust.

Depending on the length of their respective erections, the Paradise's inhabitants may remain locked with their partners for an indefinite period of time.

And this goes on in an open space, where God appears every now and then to witness his beloved Muslim men's performance. Aroused by unending erotic scenes, celibate Isa must also be enjoying uninterrupted sex either with the houris or with the boys to compensate for what he had missed during his short stay on earth.

Copulations over, both the houri and the boy turn virgins once again, ready to serve those men who may wish to have them without a moment's notice.

Since pious Muslim men - - and their number is huge- - avoid excessive and entertaining sex in their ephemeral lives, the sight of most of their brethren engaging themselves, before their eyes, in sex in a large group will not appear to them like an orgy. Instead, it would appear to them as being another pious act in Paradise; its methodology, composition of partners and duration having been determined by God himself. (Mohammad Asghar, MUHAMMAD & ISLAM: Stories not told before, PART - 13)

Now the authors may claim that the hadiths state that only men have sex with the maidens, not women. The problem with this claim is that the Quran nowhere says that only the men will have maidens of pleasure, but that this will be the reward of all believers which includes males and females. The authors must provide an explicit reference saying that the women will not have sex with these maidens of delight. They can’t simply assume this and pass it off as proof.

The authors may also wish to argue that the Quran condemns homosexuality, to which we reply where does the Quran explicitly condemn it? One verse that is often appealed to is the following:

And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. S. 4:16 Shakir

Nothing stated here leads one to think that the author had homosexuality in mind. In fact, a totally different picture emerges once the passage is read in context:

And such of your women who are guilty of any flagrant impropriety - call to witness four of you against them; and if they bear witness, then confine them to the houses until death overtakes them or ALLAH opens for them some other way. And if two from among you are guilty of it, punish them both. And if they repent and amend, then leave them alone; surely ALLAH is Oft-Returning with compassion and is ever Merciful. S. 4:15-16 Sher Ali

From the context one can argue that 4:16 is referring to the women mentioned in verse 15, i.e. that Allah is prescribing the punishment to be imposed on immoral women, whether the nature of the immorality is sexual or something else. The late Maulana Muhammad Ali agrees since this is what he says about 4:16:

The crime spoken of in this verse is the same as that in the previous verse. The committers are two, and though the masculine gender is used, it does not imply that they are both necessarily males. Slight punishment is explained by Qatadah as meaning reproving with the tongue (AH). Islam requires the utmost modesty in sexual relations.

The reference to repentance in connection with the mention of fahishah is further proof that fahishah does not here mean fornication, but some immorality short of that, for fornication is punishable criminally, and penitence on the part of those guilty of it cannot avert the punishment (Ali, Holy Qur'an - Arabic Text, English Translation & Commentary [Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA 1995], p. 193, fn. 552; underlined emphasis ours)

Now someone may argue that this interpretation is untenable since their punishment is already prescribed in verse 15. On the contrary, verse 15 says that this will be the prescribed punishment until Allah opens another way:

... then confine them to the houses until death overtakes them OR ALLAH OPENS FOR THEM SOME OTHER WAY ...

Verse 16 prescribes this other way which Allah alluded to in the prior verse. In other words, verse 16 abrogates the punishment prescribed in verse 15. This is not the only time where one verse abrogates the verse right before it:

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast. S. 8:65-66 Pickthall

4:16 may also be including the male involved in the act, so that both the male and female participants are singled out. Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi says:

584. (whether men or women, married or unmarried). The enactment here is general. It speaks of any two persons guilty of the act, in contradistinction to 'married women' of the previous verse. In several nations, as among the Greeks and in the earlier period of Roman history, there was no recognition of the offence of adultery, 'unless a married woman was the offender.' (Tafsir-Ul-Qur'an Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Volume I [Darul-Ishaat Urdu Bazar, Karachi-1, Pakistan; First edition: 1991], p. 311)

This is perhaps why Rashid Khalifa translated it in the following manner:

The couple who commits adultery shall be punished. If they repent and reform, you shall leave them alone. GOD is Redeemer, Most Merciful.

Muhammad Asad’s notes provide evidence for understanding the verse in this manner, since he writes:

... According to most of the commentators, this refers to the immoral conduct on the part of a man and a woman as well as to homosexual relations. (Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 104, fn. 13: http://www.geocities.com/masad02/004; underlined emphasis ours)

Apart from the claim that some took this in reference to homosexual relations, Asad demonstrates that there is nothing in the wording of 4:16 that necessarily points to it. One must first assume that this refers to homosexuality and then proceed to read that into the text. Asad also writes:

... Some of the commentators attribute to the term fahishah (here rendered as "immoral conduct") the meaning of "adultery" or "fornication" and are, consequently, of the opinion that this verse has been "abrogated" by 24: 2, which lays down the punishment of one hundred stripes for each of the guilty parties. This unwarranted assumption must, however, be rejected. Quite apart from the impossibility of admitting that any passage of the Qur'an could have been "abrogated" by another of its passages (see surah 2, note 87), the expression fahishah DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, CONNOTE ILLICIT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE: it signifies anything that is GROSSLY IMMODEST, unseemly, lewd, indecent or ABOMINABLE IN WORD OR DEED (cf. Lane VI, 2344f.), AND IS BY NO MEANS RESTRICTED TO SEXUAL TRANSGRESSION. Read in this context, and in conjunction with 24:2, this expression obviously denotes here immoral conduct not necessarily amounting to what is termed zina (i.e., "adultery" or "fornication"), and therefore redeemable by sincere repentance (in contrast to a proven act of zina, which is punishable by flogging). - It is noteworthy that in all cases of alleged sexual transgressions or misbehaviour the Qur'an stipulates the direct evidence of four witnesses (instead of the two required in all other judicial cases) as a sine qua non of conviction. For the reasons underlying this injunction, as well as for its judicial implications, see note 7 on 24:4. (Ibid., fn. 14; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Asad shows that there is nothing contextually which necessarily points to homosexuality. As a side note, Asad rejected the widely held Muslim belief that the Quran abrogates itself and it is therefore not surprising that he rejected the opinions of Muslims regarding the abrogation of 4:16.

The authors may try to appeal to the story of Lot in the Quran where the men of the town are considered immoral for wanting to sleep with the male guests:

And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty. S. 7:80-84 Shakir

And when Our messengers came unto Lot, he was distressed and knew not how to protect them. He said: This is a distressful day. And his people came unto him, running towards him - and before then they used to commit abominations - He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? They said: Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want. He said: Would that I had strength to resist you or had some strong support (among you)! (The messengers) said: O Lot! Lo! we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee. So travel with thy people in a part of the night, and let not one of you turn round - (all) save thy wife. Lo! that which smiteth them will smite her (also). Lo! their tryst is (for) the morning. Is not the morning nigh? So when Our commandment came to pass We overthrew (that township) and rained upon it stones of clay, one after another, Marked with fire in the providence of thy Lord (for the destruction of the wicked). And they are never far from the wrong-doers. S. 11:77-83 Pickthall

But even here the authors are without support for the following reasons. First, one can argue from the context that what the Quran is condemning is gang rape, i.e. that a group of men wanted to sleep with the male guests against their will. Trying to appeal to Lot’s negative comments about their lust of men and his willingness to offer his daughters in place of his guests to prove their point that Allah condemns homosexuality won’t work. Appealing to Lot would mean that the authors’ would have to then agree that Lot’s willingness to allow his daughters to be violated by these men was something also acceptable in God’s sight. Lot was obviously wrong in even suggesting that the evildoers sleep with his daughters, implying that he may have also been wrong in his views regarding same sex relations (at least as far as the Quran is concerned). The only way the authors can show that Lot’s negative view of same sex relations was right is to quote passages from the Quran explicitly stating this.

The authors may try to argue that the Quranic account echoes the Genesis story and since the OT condemns homosexuality the Quran would therefore be in agreement. (Cf. Lev. 18:22; 20:13)

Even though the evil men’s desire to sleep with the male guests would be condemned as a homosexual act in light of the overall context of the Pentateuch, this doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the case with the Quran. For instance, the Quran permits sexual relations which the Pentateuch condemns as abominable. Compare the following:

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4

In contrast with:

"A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand." S. 2:229-230

The Ahadith state:

Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17; see also Number 28.7.18)

In light of the foregoing one can argue that, since the Quran nowhere explicitly condemns homosexuality, the men of Lot were not being judged for having homosexual inclinations but for wanting to rape the guests against their will.

The authors may shout "not so fast," and appeal to the next quotation which says that Allah designed for a man to marry a woman:

The people of Lut gave the lie to the apostles. When their brother Lut said to them: Will you not guard (against evil)? Surely I am a faithful apostle to you; Therefore guard against (the punishment of) Allah and obey me: And I do not ask you any reward for it; my reward is only with the Lord of the worlds; What! do you come to the males from among the creatures And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits. They said: If you desist not, O Lut! you shall surely be of those who are expelled. He said: Surely I am of those who utterly abhor your doing: S. 26:160-168 Shakir

Yet again this can be easily explained away. One can argue that Allah wasn't rebuking them so much for wanting to have sex with men, but for wanting to forsake their wives. In other words, had these been unmarried men than there would have been no problem with them having sex with other men. Therefore, this passage can only be used to show that a man cannot abandon his wife to sleep with another man, but can only do so if he is single.

The authors may still appeal to other passages such as S. 29:28-29 where Lot condemns the men for coming into other men.

One could account for the above by arguing that the condemnation of homosexuality in Lot’s story only shows that it was not acceptable at that time period. One can equally argue that just as the Quran abrogated other forbidden sexual relations, such as the Mosaic prohibition of marrying one’s former wife who had remarried, the Quran also did away with the prohibition of homosexuality; especially when we take this in light of the passages that imply that homosexual relations will be permitted in, of all places, Paradise!

In one last act of desperation the authors may turn to the hadiths to prove that Islam condemns homosexuality. Note for instance the following hadiths:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 774; see also Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820)

Narrated Um Salama:
that once the Prophet was in her house, and an effeminate man was there too. The effeminate man said to 'Abdullah, (Um Salama's brother) "O 'Abdullah! If Ta'if should be conquered tomorrow, I recommend you the daughter of Ghailan, for she is so fat that she has four curves in the front (of her belly) and eight at the back." So the Prophet said (to his wives) "These effeminate (men) should not enter upon you (your houses)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 775; see also Volume 7, Book 72, Number 774; Book 62, Number 162; Volume 5, Book 59, Number 613)

Again, several responses are in order. First, these traditions would simply point to contradictions between the Quran and the ahadith. The rule of thumb is that when the ahadith contradict the Quran than the ahadith are to be rejected. Second, none of these hadiths condemn homosexuality, but condemn men for acting like women and vice-versa. This view is supported by the following hadith:

Malik said from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father that an effeminate man was with Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said to Abdullah ibn Abi Umayya while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was listening. "Abdullah! If Allah grants you victory over Ta'if tomorrow, I will lead you to the daughter of Ghailan. She has four folds on her front and eight folds on her back." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "This sort of man should not enter freely with you." (It was customary to allow men with no sexual inclination to enter freely where there were women). (Malik's Muwatta, Book 37, Number 37.6.5)

Thus, we have to ask: Why were there effeminate men to begin with? What were they doing there with the Muslims and why didn’t Muhammad punish them for being effeminate? This leads me to my final point.

If the Quran does condemn homosexuality then what is the punishment that it prescribes for those practicing it? We find passages prescribing the punishment of fornicators and adulterers, but where is the prescribed punishment for homosexuals? The following author, although erroneously assuming that Surah 4:16 refers to homosexuality, candidly admits:

That homosexuality must be treated as a crime in a Moslem State is evident from the story of Lot and his people. Verse IV.20 says: "If two men commit indecency punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, let them be." In this case NO SPECIAL PENALTY HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED. (Faruq Sherif, A Guide to the Contents of the Quran [Garnet Publishing Limited, UK (printed in Lebanon); reprinted 1995, 1998], p. 214; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Equally important, where does the Quran explicitly condemn lesbainism? Where is there any passage prescribing punishment for lesbians? There is no such passage.

Now I am sure that the authors would accuse me of twisting the passages of the Quran regarding homosexuality so as to avoid accepting its condemnation of such a practice. They would say that the reason why I fail to see what the Quran says about homosexuality is because my "perverted" mind blinds me from seeing it. I would respond by saying that this is precisely the same problem the authors have when they accuse the holy Apostle Paul of being a homosexual despite his clear condemnation of such relations.

For more on Islam and homosexuality we highly recommend the following book: Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature, by Stephen O. Murray (editor), Publisher: New York University Press; (January 1997), ISBN: 0814774679. The contributing authors demonstrate just how prevalent the practice of homosexuality, including lesbianism, was in Muslim lands throughout the centuries.

Also, the following web site makes available upon request an article where they produce evidence they feel sufficiently proves that Muhammad was gay:

In the following links, author Faris Malik attempts to make a strong case for the permissbility of having passive homosexual relations by examining some Quranic passages and hadiths:

Another Muslim site defending homosexuality: www.al-fatiha.org.

Articles with further material on related issues: The Quran and Lesbianism, Islamic Scholarship on the Issue of Incest and Sodomy.

We conclude by rewording the authors’ own addendum since what they wrote actually applies more to them.

Apparently, the team of Bismikaallahuma has not learned the least bit from this paper since they repeat the same mistake over again by alleging the prophets Daniel and David to be homosexuals, see the article Daniel, Allah and Muhammad: How a common three letter word can turn you into a homosexual.

Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page