Reform Minded Muslim

Homosexuality in the Quran and Hadith

Queer Sexuality and Identity in the Qur'an and Hadith

by Faris Malik

The Qur'an generally scorns "approaching males in lust", as well as the castration of males, as the sin of the people of Lot (Qur'an 7:81, 26:165-166, 27:55, 29:28-29).


7:81: "Indeed you approach males in lust excluding women..."
Arabic: "Innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala shahwatan min doon in-nisaa'i."

26:165-166: "You approach the males of the worlds and forsake those whom your Lord has created for you for your mates."
Arabic: "Ata'toona adh-dhukraana min al-'aalameena, wa tadharoona ma khalaqa lakum Rabbukum min azwaajikum."

27:55: "Will you indeed approach males in lust excluding women?"
Arabic: "A 'innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala shahwatan min doon in-nisaa'i?"

29:28-29 "Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you; What! do you come unto the males and cut the passageways [i.e. vas deferens and/or urethra] and do so in your private clubs?"
Arabic: "Innakum lata'toona al-faahishata ma sabaqakum biha min ahadin mina al-'aalameena. Innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala wa taqta'oona as-sabeela wa ta'toona fee naadikumu?"


But the Qur'an does not prohibit using, as passive sex partners, the ancient category of men who by nature lacked desire for women, since such men were not considered "male" as a result of their lack of arousal for women. This kind of man is often known as "gay" in modern times, but in the ancient world he was identified as an anatomically whole "natural eunuch." Although the Qur'an never uses the word eunuch [khasiyy], the hadith and the books of the legal scholars do. Furthermore, the Qur'an recognizes that some men are "without the defining skill of males" (24:31: "ghair oolaa il-irbati min ar-rijaali") and so, as domestic servants, are allowed to see women naked. This is a reference to natural eunuchs, i.e. gay men.

A person had to be indifferent to women's bodies in order to assume the role as a servant in women's private space. In one case, a servant who had been assumed to be indifferent to women due to his being an "effeminate" [mukhannath] was evicted by the Prophet because he unexpectedly demonstrated a lascivious attitude toward a woman:


Bukhari, Authentic Traditions, Book of Marriage, Chapter 114 (162) What is forbidden concerning the entering upon the wife by those imitating women. [It was narrated] of Umm Salama that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was at her house, and in the house there was an effeminate [mukhannath], and the effeminate said to the brother of Umm Salama, Abdullah bin Abi Umayya: If God makes you all conquer Ta'if tomorrow, I suggest to you the daughter of Ghailan, for surely she approaches with four and turns her back with eight [?]. Then the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: This one shall not enter upon you (pl.).


Muslim, Collection of Authentic Traditions, Book of Greetings, Chapter 912 (note: as translated into English by 'Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, who misleadingly uses the word eunuch as the translation for mukhannath. It is precisely because he was not a eunuch that he got into trouble!):

(5415) Umm Salama reported that she had a eunuch [mukhannath] (as a slave) in her house. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was once in the house that he (the eunuch) said to the brother of Umm Salama: 'Abdullah b. Abu Umayya, if Allah grants you victory in Ta'if on the next day, I will show you the daughter of Ghailan, for she has four folds (upon her body) on the front side of her stomach and eight folds on the back. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) heard this and he said: Such (people) should not visit you.

(5416) 'A'isha reported that a eunuch [mukhannath] used to come to the wives of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and they did not find anything objectionable in his visit, considering him to be a male without any sexual desire [fakaanoo ya'doonahu min ghair oolaa il-irbah]. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) one day came as he was sitting with some of his wives and he was busy in describing the bodily characteristics of a lady and saying: As she comes in front four folds appear on her front side and as she turns her back eight folds apear on the back side. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: I see that he knows these things; do not, therefore, allow him to enter. She ('A'isha) said: Then they began to observe veil from him.


Note that in 'A'isha's telling of the story, she states that the women allowed him into their private rooms because they assumed he "lacked the defining skill" (the translator added the word male and put "considering him to be a male without any sexual desire," but the Arabic says only that they "deemed him to lack the defining skill"). 'A'isha actually quotes the Qur'anic verse about men who "lack the defining skill of males," demonstrating that his presence in the women's space would have been proper according to the Qur'an if only he had in fact "lacked the defining skill." However, the statement of the effeminate man about the daughter of Ghailan, whatever it meant, indicated to Muhammad that he did not lack the defining skill of males and that, on the contrary, he had an appreciation of women as sexual objects. This disqualifies him as an intimate domestic servant according to the Qur'an as well as the standards of the day. In a system that depends on household servants to be heterosexually indifferent, the main risk is that this indifference can be faked. In other words, a heterosexual male can pretend to be an exclusive homosexual in order to gain free access to the private space of women.

There are other hadiths (Bukhari LXXII 61.773 and 62.774) against cross-dressers in which the Prophet specifically curses "males" who imitate women and women who imitate "males," and in which the consequence of their malfeasance is that he "evicts them from the houses." The specification of "males" is made very explicit:


61.773 The Messenger of God, peace be upon him, cursed female-impersonators [m.pl.] who are males, and the male-impersonators [f.pl.] who are women.
Arabic: la'ana rasoolullah salla allahu 'alaihi wa sallama al-mutashabbiheena min ar-rijaali bil-nisaa'i wal-mutashabbihaati min an-nisaa'i bir-rijaali.

62.774 The Prophet, peace be upon him, cursed the effeminates [m.pl.] who are males, and the male-pretenders [f.pl.] who are women, and he said: Evict them from your houses, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, evicted such-and-such [m.sg.] and 'Umar evicted such-and-such [f.sg.].
Arabic: la'ana an-nabiyy salla allahu 'alaihi wa sallama al-mukhannatheena min ar-rijaali wal-mutarajjilaati min an-nisaa'i wa qaala: akhrijoohum min buyootikum, qaala: fa'akhraja an-nabiyy salla allahu 'alaihi wa sallama fulaanan wa 'akhraja 'umaru fulaanatan.


The words "males" and "women" are obviously emphatic here because the grammar does not really require them to be used. Masculine gender is already provided grammatically by the endings on the words "impersonators" and "effeminates," and feminine gender is already provided in the words "impersonators" and "male-pretenders." Given the emphasis, the curse is specifically directed only at "males" and "women," and does not cover non-males who might be female-impersonators (or non-women who might be male-impersonators, if indeed there was a recognition of "non-women"). It's okay to be a drag queen as long as you are not a straight man posing to gain access to unsuspecting women, or to the wives of unsuspecting husbands.

The Qur'an recognizes that there are some people who are "ineffectual" ['aqeem], thus neither male nor female:


42:49 "To Allah belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth. It creates what It wills. It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males. 50 Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual. Indeed It is the Knowing, the Powerful."
Arabic: "Lillahi mulku us-samaawaati wal'ardhi. Yakhluqu ma yashaa'u. Yahabu liman yashaa'u inaathan wa yahabu liman yashaa'u adh-dhukura. Aw yuzawwijuhum dhukraanan wa inaathan; wa yaj'alu man yashaa'u 'aqeeman: innahu 'Aleemun Qadeerun."

These last two verses (42:49 and 50) are usually interpreted differently in English translations to say that God bestows daughters or sons on whom It wills and gives some people both sons and daughters. But there are problems with this interpretation, one of which being that the word for causing to marry or pairing up [zawwaja] is used in the second verse. When families have boys and girls, the boys and girls do not usually arrive in pairs! The second problem is that, in Qur'anic verses mentioning males and females together, the males are usually mentioned first, and the females second (e.g., 3:195, 4:12, 4:124, 6:143-144, 16:97, 40:40, 42:50, 49:13, 53:21, 53:45, 75:39, 92:3). This is the only verse in the Qur'an, as far as I know, in which the female is mentioned before the male. If these two verses were talking about sons and daughters, we would expect sons to be mentioned before daughters.

In this case, the "males first" principle would indicate that the lines are referring to females and males not as offspring, but as counterparts, i.e. objects of desire, for "whom(ever) God wills." The female objects of desire are mentioned first because they are most typically objects of desire for males. Hence, even this verse is referring to males first, as the most typical "whom(ever)" for whom God prepares females. Yet the use of the word "whom(ever)" leaves it open for females to be objects of desires for other females as well, when God wills, and for males to be love objects for females and other passive non-males. I believe this verse is very neatly and concisely describing the varieties of sexual orientation and gender, which Allah, the All-Knowing and All-Powerful, creates as Allah wishes.

The ineffectual can include abstinent women as well as men, and in fact "the abstinent ones among women, who do not hope for marriage" [wal-qawaa'idu min an-nisaa'i allaati laa yarjoona nikaahan], are permitted to "put off their cover" in Sura 24:60.

Another intriguing example of a gender variant woman is Jesus's mother Mary. According to ancient notions about procreation, males were the only ones capable of producing seed. It would be impossible for a woman to give birth to a child, let alone a boy, without receiving seed from a male. In Christianity, this problem is solved by making God the male father of Jesus. According to the Qur'an, however, God does not procreate. This means that the seed that became Jesus came from within Mary. If Mary carried viable seed originating from within her, then by ancient definitions, she was a male, despite appearances to the contrary. So the Qur'an says that, when Mary was born, her mother declared that she was a female baby, but God knew better:


(Qur'an 3:36) Lord, surely, I have brought it forth a female - and Allah knew best what she brought forth - and the male is not like the female...
Arabic: Rabb, innee wada'tuha unthaa wa Allah 'a'lamu bimaa wada'at wa laisa adh-dhakaru kal-untha ...


There are other traditions about the gender variance of Mary. I have argued elsewhere that Mary's "virginity" is not merely the innocent state of a girl who has not yet known a man, but a more permanent rejection of sex with men, like that of the Vestal virgins in Rome. In Isaiah 7:14, it is predicted that a "virgin" will conceive bear a son, but the word for virgin used there is not the generic bethulah used throughout the Hebrew scripture for girls who have not yet had sex. Instead, the word almah is used, a very rare word in the scriptures, which is the female counterpart to elem, meaning boy. In the other verses in which it is used, it is compatible with a meaning of tomboy or rebuffer of men (cf. Proverbs 30:18-19, in which an almah appears to be impermeable to men).

Homosexual activity by straight men
Homosexual activity by homosexuals (eunuchs) is not spoken of in the Qur'an, which mentions only the unjust homosexual rape perpetrated by straight men against other straight men. Besides the Lut story, sexual exploitation of straight males is also alluded to in the assurance that prophet Joseph's slaveholders "abstained from him" (12:20: "wa kaanuu feehi min az-zaahideen").

But the Qur'an and hadith also have traces of the permitted homosexual desires of straight men. There is even a hadith in Bukhari, admittedly giving not the Prophet's opinion but that of Abu Jafar, according to which a pedophile is prohibited from marrying the mother of his boy-beloved if there is penetration:


(Bukhari LXII, 25) As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.
Arabic: feeman yal'abu bis-sabiyy: in 'adkhalahu feehi falaa yatazawwajanna 'ummahu.


(This rule is accompanied in the same chapter by prohibitions against a man marrying both a mother and her daughter.) Apparently according to this hadith, even sexual penetration of a boy is not considered sodomy, because if it was, surely the sodomite would have more worries than whether he could marry the boy's mother! Like whether he preferred to die by fire, stoning, or falling from a high tower! These are some of the punishments mentioned in the hadith for "doing as the people of Lut did." [A reader wrote in to say that this hadith would not necessarily imply that penetration of boys was not sodomy, but could be a recognition of the fact that not all crimes will be discovered and punished and that one who does penetrate a boy, even if he is not punished for sodomy for whatever reason, should at least know in his own conscience that the mother of his boyfriend is off limits. In any case, one possible inference from this hadith is still very interesting: namely, that if a man plays with a boy without penetration, then marrying the mother is still a possibility!!]

The distinction between pederasty (sex with boys) and sodomy (penetration of "males") was commonly, albeit not universally maintained throughout the ancient world, and indeed survived throughout most of the history of Islam until at least the nineteenth century (in spite of the futile objections of some medieval scholars). Apparently, boy-love was considered okay by many people because, like "natural eunuchs," underage boys also lacked the "defining skill of males" (sexual potency with women). The Qur'an itself gives support to pederasts in its glimpses of paradise:


52:17-29 And they shall have boys [ghilmaan] circulating among them as if they were hidden pearls.

56:22-23 and dark-eyed ones [hoorun 'eenun], the like of hidden pearls

76:19 And immortal boys [wildaanun mukhalladoona] will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.

2:25 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in [the gardens] ...

4:57 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in them ...


One of the great male Sufi contemporaries of Rabi'a al-'Adawiyya provided a divine justification for a pederastic relationship, which was repeated without a hint of disapproval in a 10th century book about great Sufi women:


One day Rabi'a saw Rabah [al-Qaysi] kissing a young boy ["huwa yuqabbil sabiyyan"]. 'Do you love him?' she asked. 'Yes,' he said. To which she replied, 'I did not imagine that there was room in your heart to love anything other than God, the Glorious and Mighty!' Rabah was overcome at this and fainted. When he awoke, he said, 'On the contrary, this is a mercy that God Most High has put into the hearts of his slaves.'
(Quoted from as-Sulami, Early Sufi Women = Dhikr an-niswa al-muta 'abbidat as sufiyyat, translated by Rkia E. Cornell, Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1999, pp. 78-79.)


Besides boys, straight Muslim men were occasionally interested in grown adults as well, provided they were not "male." There is a hadith in which the Prophet's companions asked whether they were allowed to use men (presumably prisoners of war) as "eunuchs" to fulfill their sexual urges, since they were far from their wives.


Bukhari LXII 6:9 [Narrated by ibn Mas'ud:] "We used to fight [in battle] together with the Prophet, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. We said: O Messenger, may we treat some as eunuchs [a laa nastakhsii]? He forbade us to do so."


The version in Bukhari LXII 8:13 says that rather than let the companions "treat [some] as eunuchs" in the absence of their wives, the Prophet "allowed them to marry corrupted women" [rakhasa lana an nankih al-maraa bil-shaub] from the vicinity, and he recited to them from the Qur'an: "O ye who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression."

The fact that Muhammad forbade the companions from designating men as eunuchs is not the point here. Of course, using a straight male as a eunuch was wrong -- that was essentially the sin of the people of Lut. But what about using a eunuch (i.e. one who permanently lacks arousal with women) as a eunuch? Given that ibn Mas'ud made reference to the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification, and given that the Prophet understood what he meant, that indicates that the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification was known in Arabic society, and was considered a use that was appropriate to eunuchs. Since eunuchs were not considered male, there was no prohibition against it, not even in the Qur'an.

Eunuchs were still sex objects for straight men in the Mamluk dynasty, according to David Ayalon in Eunuchs, Caliphs, and Sultans: A Study in Power Relationships (Jerusalem, 1999). They not only served to prevent older Mamluks from having sexual access to younger trainees:


The eunuchs seem to have served as a shield against homosexual lust in yet another way. They themselves formed the target of that lust, thus diverting it from the youngsters. They are described as being womanly and docile in bed at night and manly and warlike by day in a campaign and in similar circumstances (hum nisaa' li-mutmainn muqeem wa rijaal in kaanat al-asfaar; li-annahum bin-nahaar fawaaris wa bil-lail 'araa'is). [Arabic quoted by Ayalon from Abu Mansur al-Tha'alibi, Al-Latâ'if wal-Zarâ'if, Cairo 1324/1906-7, p. 79, lines 1-7; and the same quote from Tha'alibi in his Tamthîl wal-Muhâdara, Cairo 1381/1961, p. 224.]


As for the issue of whether Muhammad himself expressly acknowledged that some people by nature refrain from heterosexuality, thus being natural eunuchs, consider the following hadith. It is related that one of the Prophet's companions, Abu Huraira, went to the Prophet, saying that he was a "young male" who "feared torment for his soul," but that he "did not find the wherewithal to marry a woman" [innee rajulun shaabbun wa ana akhaafu 'alaa nafsee al-'anata wa laa ajidu ma atazawwaju bihi an-nisaa'a]. The Prophet remained silent, even after Abu Huraira repeated his statement three times. Finally after the fourth time, Muhammad said: "O Abu Huraira, the pen is dry regarding what is befitting for you. So be a eunuch for that reason or leave it alone." [ya Abaa Hurairata, jaffa al-qalam bimaa anta laaq fa'akhtasi 'alaa dhalika au dhar] (Bukhari, LXII 8). (For comparison, consider that when Uthman came to Muhammad asking if he could be permitted to live a life of abstinence, he was rebuffed.)

If Muhammad's answer to Abu Huraira is to make sense, then of course it must bear a relation to the statement Abu Huraira made. First we have to ask what kind of torment Abu Huraira feared for his soul [nafs]? Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the translator of Bukhari into English, interpreted it as fear of committing illicit sexual intercourse. If that interpretation is correct, then we still have to determine what "illicit sexual intercourse" would mean for Abu Huraira. As a self-described "male," two forms of sexual activity would be inadmissible and therefore the temptation to them would cause torment for his soul: the desire to be sexually passive with a man (known as ubnah) or the desire to commit adultery with a female. Yet, Abu Huraira ["the father of kittens"] seemed to hint at a solution to his dilemma when he said he did not find (in himself?) what was required for marrying a woman. Now, if that merely meant that he had no money to support a wife, for instance, and was tempted to commit adultery with a female, then the Prophet would surely have advised him to fast and be patient in accordance with Sura 24:33 (also Bukhari LXII 2 and 3), instead of advising him, as he did, to accept his fate and, if appropriate, be a eunuch, something which he denied as an option to Uthman. On the other hand, if Abu Huraira's statement meant he lacked potency with women, then obviously he could not be fearing the temptation to adultery with women. In that case, only passive homosexuality was a danger. However, if he would not ever marry a woman, due to impotency with women or for any other reason, then he would not be acting as a male, but rather as a eunuch, in which case passive homosexuality would not be forbidden for him. But Muhammad cautions him that his identity, either as a eunuch or as a male, has already been determined by his Creator ("the pen is dried"), and he must figure it out which it is and live his life accordingly. If he ever intends to have sex with a woman (i.e. act as a male), then he must avoid passive homosexuality and get married.

If the last hadith has been told to fellow Muslims instead of preaching hatred and homophobia, I think the problem of homsexual males getting married because of social pressure etc2, and later have sex with another male behind his wife, to satisfy his urges, will be solved.
Wallahualam

Kesalahan Luar Tabii di Malaysia (Unnatural Offences in Malaysia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXLhX8cluXQ

Unnatural Offences

377.Buggery with an animal.
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse
with an animal shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine or to whipping. Explanation
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the
offence described in this section.
377A.Carnal intercourse against the order
of nature.
Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the
introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to
commit carnal intercourse against the order of
nature. Explanation
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the
offence described in this section.
377B.Punishment for committing carnal
intercourse against the order of nature.
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal
intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.
377C. Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without
consent, etc.
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the
order of nature on another
person without the consent, or against the will,
of the other person, or by
putting other person in fear of death or hurt to
the person or any other person,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term of not less than five years and
not more than twenty years, and shall
also be liable to whipping.

funny codes...

UnIslamic Muslim?

Well, the thing is, I can no longer stand male chauvinist stupid remarks, hiding under their own interpretation of Islam, which to me is nothing Islamic, but just polemic,
Muslim men always got away, putting the blame on women, scroll down, you'll see what I mean. duh...

KB council bans lipstick, high heels

KOTA BARU: Muslim women employees working here are forbidden to wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes to work.

This directive is contained in a municipal council circular dated May 25 and signed by its president Shafie Ismail, which has been distributed to business premises here.

A check, however, found that only a few tenants had received the circular this week.

The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan.

It stated that Muslim women were forbidden to wear thick make-up, bright coloured lipstick and high-heeled shoes which made a tapping sound.

Those who insisted on wearing high-heeled shoes should choose those with rubber soles.

Attempts to contact Shafie for clarification were futile.

The directive on the wearing of lipstick and high-heeled shoes are in addition to the wearing of scarves, which should cover the chest and not be of transparent material, blouses with long sleeves, which were long and loose, as well as socks.

Those who do not adhere to the regulation can be fined up to RM500. – Bernama

whats next? forbidding them to shower, because from male chauvinist point of view, smelling good is sexually appealing as well I guess
uhh

p.s. probably he didn't meant to be sexist, but the problem is most of us Muslim thinks like that, its a problem of mindset which I am not sure where it came from.

Understanding Homosexuality

A brilliant talk on describing homosexuality from developmental psychology perspective...



this vdo allow us to understand what does homosexuality alternatively means, rather than looking at it as a normal biological anomaly.

because if we look at it as a normal deviant, it doesn't 'fit-in' in the Religion perspective. Because most Religion condemn this (which actually condemning the act of homosexuality, i.e. having sex with the same gender, not the sexual tendency),
I don't believe whats in our thought matter (as it is all considered as temptation), what matters to Him is our action. After all isn't life is a test?

It is not only Malaysian sisters dillema

If u are a women, and considering of gettg married, but u think that it is mission impossible
this video might help, but take it lightly, its Baba Ali ;)

What is gay? by a 12 years old boy

Look at the diagram below, observe the pictures and read the hyphenated words.

No, I’m not asking you to do the task. (If u want to, please, and please don’t ask me to mark, I am myself have lots of grammatical error in my sentences :P) But this task was given by me to a group of 12 years old for their English class. I was their on-call teacher.

Student A & B: [Talking and laughing]
Me: Boys, Whats so funny about?
Student A: He said Gerald is gay. [Pointing at student B]
Student B: [Sheepishly smile and avoid eye contact]
Me: [Not sure whats appropriate to say for a second. Come up with a question to Student A] What is gay?
Student A: Pondan! sir [confidently tell me]
Me: No, its not. [cant hold the straight face, I did smile]
Student A: Yes, it is [smiling]
The girls: [Smiling too]
Other boys: [No reaction]
Me: [Change topic, and laughing inside (No, im not going to change this English class to a sexual education forum)]

Im not surprise they know the jargon (which should not be known by their age at my time), its all over the media (the celebrity gossip etc). But I just don’t understand how they come up with that conclusion (Gerald is gay). Obviously they associate the term with effeminate male (they pics suggest he is befriending with two girls, thus Gerald is not masculine, maybe?), and its not about sexual orientation Haha Even many adult don’t understand this, how can I expect their kids to understand (speakin in Malaysian context). Even some of the so called expert on TV somehow suggest to viewers that gay is about the sexual activity u-know-between-not-the opposite-sex.
Thank God im not that shallow and I did take some social science subjects back in college.

Islam is a sexist religion?

I'm sure we all aware of this statement, from the media, or from other people around us, or even from our own thought, when we think about it base on our shallow understanding of Islam.
I guess its normal, we all human, logical being, faith doesnt come by without deeper understanding and thinking.

Therefore sometime, even Muslims themselves believe in this statement, and some even try to reinterpret the Quran because they think there are bias in the interpretation as it was translated by males, therefore it is from male perspective.
Probably this is an unnecessary step, because what I believe, we don't need 'new' interpretation, as the most important thing is, to understand the meaning behind what had been interpreted.

As a Muslim, we believe in all things Allah had told us to, its in the faith.
But, how you as a Muslims, going to face such remark on Islam. Is your current methodology is wise enough?
Or if you are still searching, you want the answer and you feel that your faith is not strong enough.

Even if you are not a Muslim, but you are open minded, and want to learn what Islam actually is, and why there are the so called 'sexist rules' in the religion,
Or you have been irked and unsatisfied, by the common answer from a Muslim regarding Islam. for example, When u asked, why a Muslim women need to cover up?, they replied with the common stereotypical: to prevent her from being raped. Of course this doesnt make sense.

There are answers for this.
Perfect Justice: Debunking the male bias myth by Yasir Qadhi

The introduction transcript

The topic that has been assigned for me for today, is entitled perfect justice debunking the male bias myth. In other words the topic is about explaining to non Muslims in our time even many Muslims why is it there are so many gender specific rules. Gender different rules in Islam.

Why do our women have to wear hijab and not man?

Why is it that a man is allowed to practice polygamy and not women?

Why is it that the inheritance is different?

Why, Why Why?

So many questions arise from non Muslims and even in our times for many Muslims They are questioning the fundamentals of their religion. The fundamentals of Fiqh. The fundamentals of Usul. The fundamentals of male female interaction and they are wondering why is our religion is so different from what we see around us today. From the environment we have been raised in and so I’m trying to explain in this talk in a nutshell our proper methodology of response.

How do we response to these allegation Somebody comes and tell us Islam is a very Chauvinistic religion? Its a sexist faith? It prefers men over women? And they list a number of things such as polygamy, such as hijab, such as inheritance, such as this and that, witnesses in the court and they list a number of things and they say look, look at this type of religion, its making women backwards, and is promoting male chauvinism and making men better than women. How do we response to these allegation? how do we defend our faith from these accusations?

Now the topic that I’m talking about is very common, is very common you’d heard it so many times on human rights in Islam, in fact I may even go so far as to say that this has become a staple topic for many conventions and many speakers. So much so that an average talk that is advertise with this topic in mind, would not even generate a great response because its cliché been there done that. I’ve heard this conversation before So let me reassure you that although the topic might indeed be very common. In fact one of the most common topics at Muslim conventions and gatherings. Let me be so bold as to state that the response you’ll hear today insyaAllah is a very very unique response It is a response that is rarely heard It is a response that I personally believe is a much better and perfect response than the traditional, than the stereotypical response that is given to these questions

Because and I claim perhaps very boldly and Ill justify this claim that the traditional methodology of responding to these allegations by traditional methodology I’m referring to answers that all of you know.

Why is a men is allowed to have more than one wife and a women isn’t? Well because during the times of war its men who dies and the women is more numerous because there is orphans because you know more widowers.

Why is it that u know the inheritances is more for the men vs. the women? Well because the men has more financial obligation than a women, so you have these (excuse me) stereotypical responses okay.

And I state quite boldly and Ill defend this insyaAllah that these responses have not, cannot and will not succeed in doing justice to our religion These traditional responses, they will not succeed in solving this bias In solving this perception that non Muslims and unfortunately many Muslims who are now grounded in their religion have of our religion with regards to male female interactions.

I hope, above transcript of the introduction had intrigue your interest in watching and listening to the video below. Mark your planner for an hour date with this Yasir Qadhi’s lecture, because I think it is the best lecture providing the best answer in this issue.

to download, find the link here

About Yasir Qadhi
Yasir Qadhi was born in Houston, Texas and completed his primary and secondary education in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He graduated with a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Houston, after which he was accepted as a student at the Islamic University of Madinah. After completing a diploma in Arabic, he graduated with a B.A. from the College of Hadith and Islamic Sciences. Thereafter, he completed a M.A. in Islamic Theology from the College of Dawah.
His published works include Riya'a: The Hidden Shirk, Du'aa: The Weapon of the Believer, and An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an.
Yasir Qadhi is currently pursuing his doctorate, in Religious Studies, at Yale University in New Haven, CT. At AlMaghrib Instiute he teaches the Light of Guidance and the Light Upon Light seminars, which focus on aqeedah.

More and more woman landed on Mars

I like this article by Dina Zaman in the Star today, not because of the sympathy, but simply because I never read any article by women trying to understand what men are going through actually, despite their superficial strong image, characterized and demanded by the society.

The only thing I read from women about men is that men are such an ass. I guess we like to highlight only the negative side of ppls.

Some bits of this article is a bit exaggerating or not applicable to most of us, but I think the general idea is true, Its is not easy to be a man!

Is it tough to be a man?
A writer's life
By DINA ZAMAN

[source]

WAVING his hand at me, my friend asked: “Do you know why men visit prostitutes?”

“For sex?” I answered, blithely.

“No! To talk! Men pay prostitutes to listen to them. All the women do is listen. It’s not always about sex!”

In my short life as a woman, I have come to learn one thing about men, and one of the easiest ways of handling their ridiculous logic is by nodding and hemming at the right moments while daydreaming about my next project.

Meanwhile, I store the bits of useful as well as useless information they spout at me in one corner of my brain so that when they ask whether I’m listening I am able to regurgitate their pearls of wisdom.

Then they beam and say I am a marvellous listener. I flutter my eyelashes and coo, “Chen-chew baby.” Then when I am home I detox my brain. Whew!

I don’t mean to malign my male friends at all; in all honesty, I have utter sympathy for them, because the truth is that to be a man, especially a very successful man, is tough. We’re Asians, and our society is patriarchal. And in spite of everyone saying that they are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, I’m beginning to think that money is their real god.

Being a woman is fantastic in spite of our troubles, MPs coming up with crackpot comments about our menstrual cycles (they should try living with endometriosis; that should shut them up good and proper) and clothing; despite the crap and battles we wage, I personally feel being a woman is 200 times better than being a man.

At the same time, I note that 21st century living is a killer. To be a man in this century, I think, would probably mean a lifetime swallowing Xanax (a short-acting drug used to treat anxiety disorders). My friend’s outburst earlier on became a nightlong conversation about what it meant to be a contemporary Malaysian man.

It is not enough to have a good job, he has to be a millionaire at that. It is not enough to have a wife and family, because as he rises to the top, there is pressure to conform to society’s idea of wealth: taking on mistresses and other wives.

Friends and peers compete with each other on who has a better Number Two while nubile women throw themselves at him. If that’s not enough, men compete over other things: cars, watches, clothes, holidays, hobbies, country clubs.

My God, these men!

And, yes, he has to be the best lover in the country. No wonder Viagra is doing brisk sales. All these pressures would render even a tomcat in heat impotent.

I also believe women too play a part in this. I may have said I’m all for women’s rights, but I’m not blind. It’s never enough for some women. A lot of mothers, wives and girlfriends want this, this, and that.

You can’t marry the girl you really love, you must marry a girl from the right sort of background.

Wives, especially the harridan types married their men because of prospect! Ambition! Security! Hell, in this town, what is love? It sure ain’t carte blanche to the good life. If you call this feminism, well, it’s bonkers.

I have this friend. Very successful divorced man, who’s in love with a single mother but his maman wants him to marry a virgin from the right background. I still remember him bawling at his mother over the phone, “Mak! I don’t want a virgin! I’m not a virgin myself!”

A lot of times, I blame mothers (not all, so don’t chuck the kuali at me yet) for these pressures. Men can’t upset their mothers, not in Malaysia anyway. Which is probably why we single girls opt to stay single: nobody wants to deal with fearsome mothers-in-law.

The pressure to succeed is another thing. From the time men were babies, it’s been go, go, go. The straight As. The degrees, and then the jobs. Hitting big time. Their fathers are equally as cruel as their mothers. That’s it? You call that success? Turn your company into a PLC first, then we'll talk.

Men in the end believe that money is power. This goes from top down and bottom up. A man’s role is to provide. Full stop. No wonder they go absolutely potty. They’re not taught correct responsibility, respect towards women and others.

With their families and society perpetuating the myth of Man, and them bending backwards so these men will thrive in this country, KL Tower, we have a problem.

So while our men are waging corporate wars, building bridges and making and breaking multi-million dollar mergers, the retail industry throws them for a loop. Before you put on the Zegna suit, perhaps monsieur should visit the spa and have a facial while at it. Mon dieu. Talk about the emasculation of the male gender and ego.

And these are heterosexual men we are talking about. You try talking to the gay boy who’s a corporate raider but has to pretend he’s straight and has to do all the right things so his cover won’t be blown ... that one lagi sakit otak.

Men, for all their blustering, have fragile egos. Women may weep and wail, but when push comes to shove, women dust themselves off after a fall or two and get on with it. Men drown themselves in material things because these are symbols of masculinity.

As I listened to my friend explain why it’s tough to be a man, I was struck by an image of a tired and bored circus lion jumping through fiery hoops.

“So what do you think?” My friend asked. “Am I not the saviour of all men?”

I looked at him.

“Erm,” I said, “I think you’re going to have a heart attack by the end of the year.”

Dina Zaman’s journalistic hero is Tintin, Boy Reporter.

Me and this girl

This is an open ended question, the details have to be disclosed, because I dont wanna cause any shame to the girl if I brought up every bits of detail here. Hopefully she didnt read this, as I dont think she will, bcos Id told her bout my blog, but she replied she is too lazy to read.

The questions:

What if there is this person, that give all kind of hints (some are just too direct) that suggest she wanna be yr life partner. (stop laughing! I am dead serious haha) (I know when a person mean this, I am not perasan or somethin like that, Id lived 23 yrs to understand ths) In fact another fren of mine also feel the same way I feel when I told her bout this girl, she said its too obvious! (thats from another girl perspective)

What if you, on the other hand, dont feel the same way. You are nice to the person, bcos she is your friend. Its fren's responsibility to encourage, support others right? Caring and compassionate bout others is not wrong right? Your kindness towards the person is just because the person is yr fren, nothin more attached to it (you know what i mean).

Now, I feel that by continuing being nice to the person, will give her false hope? I did clarify her that our rship is just as fren, and im sure it wont evolve, and she did agree. But lately, she is keep pushing, but keep saying that she is just kidding. Erk.

Did she thought im too shy to express my feelins on her? No, bcos if I like a person more than as fren, I wont keep it inside, Ill let the person know.

Did she think I like her bcos me being nice to her? Erk, Im not, I tend to be nice, If the other person being nice to me. Its simple social behavior.

Relationship is a two ways thing, U cant 'be with' a person, if u are not 'into' the other person right? I feel sorry for this girl, if she is deeply into me, (again, dont laugh on this, I am serious) my apology and probably my mistake as well, I shouldnt be that nice to the person mayb, but what I did is genuine, not my intention to result this.
Argh, Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

p.s. well, not all women are from Venus, some had adapted with Mars, TQ to these women (girls more suited to their age) for just being my frens :)

First Holy Quran Translation by Women?

It was reported in an American media recently, that there is a 'new' translation of Al-Quran by an Iranian-American women, Laleh Bakhtiar PhD.



News Timeline:
November 2006: A brief announcement about this Qur’an translation was made at the WISE Conference: Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity held in New York
March 24, 2007: Neil MacFarquhar published an article in the New York Times, New Translation Prompts Debate on Islamic Verse, and since then his article has been republished all over the world...and this had created debates in news and blogs globally.
April 2007: The English translation is now released, link here. The English Arabic version in September 2008. Samples of the text are available in the link.

Here is the interview transcript with Laleh Bakhtiar on this, published in The American Muslim Web.

If u dont have much time, below is the highlight of the interview about her translation called The Sublime Quran.

Features of The Sublime Quran

1. This translation reverts 4:34; “to beat” back to 'its original interpretation meaning' “to go away"
2. a universal, inclusive translation with no parenthetical expressions
3. the translation has internal consistency and reliability
4. There is a different English equivalent for each Arabic grammatical form
5. words not appearing in the Arabic but necessary for English are in italics
6. translation is presented line by line and not verse by verse
7. Symbols indicating how a line is recited in Arabic is indicated

You can find the elaborations of these and more of her arguments about the Arabic terms 'daraba' originally meant "to beat" which is now reverted to "to go away"in the interview transcript.

You can also find more about this in the New York Times article below...

March 25, 2007

New Translation Prompts Debate on Islamic Verse

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

CHICAGO — Laleh Bakhtiar had already spent two years working on an English translation of the Koran when she came upon Chapter 4, Verse 34.

She nearly dropped the project right then.

The hotly debated verse states that a rebellious woman should first be admonished, then abandoned in bed, and ultimately “beaten” — the most common translation for the Arabic word “daraba” — unless her behavior improves.

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating,” said Ms. Bakhtiar, an Iranian-American who adopted her father’s Islamic faith as an adult and had not dwelled on the verse before. “I couldn’t believe that God would sanction harming another human being except in war.”

Ms. Bakhtiar worked for five more years, with the translation to be published in April. But while she found a way through the problem, few verses in the Koran have generated as much debate, particularly as more Muslim women study their faith as an academic field.

“This verse became an issue of debate and controversy because of the ethics of the modern age, the universal notions of human rights,” said Khaled Abou El Fadl, an Egyptian-born law professor and Islamic scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The leader of the North American branch of a mystical Islamic order, Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, said he had been questioned about the verse in places around the world where women were struggling for greater rights, but most of all by Westerners.

Women want to be free “from some of the extreme ideology of some Muslims,” the sheik said, after delivering a sermon on the verse recently in Oakland, Calif.

[In Germany last week, a judge citing the verse caused a public outcry after she rejected the request for a fast track divorce by a Moroccan-German woman because her husband beat her. The judge, removed from the case, had written that the Koran sanctioned physical abuse.]

There are at least 20 English translations of the Koran. “Daraba” has been translated as beat, hit, strike, scourge, chastise, flog, make an example of, spank, pet, tap and even seduce.

“Spank?” exclaimed Professor Abou El Fadl, who has concluded that the verse refers to a rare public legal procedure that ended before the 10th century. “That is really kinky. That is the author fantasizing too much.”

Ms. Bakhtiar, who is 68 and has a doctorate in educational psychology, set out to translate the Koran because she found the existing version inaccessible for Westerners. Many Jewish and Christian names, for example, have been Arabized, so Moses and Jesus appear in the English version of the Koran as Musa and Issa.

When she reached the problematic verse, Ms. Bakhtiar spent the next three months on “daraba.” She does not speak Arabic, but she learned to read the holy texts in Arabic while studying and working as a translator in Iran in the 1970s and ’80s.

Her eureka moment came on roughly her 10th reading of the Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, a 3,064-page volume from the 19th century, she said. Among the six pages of definitions for “daraba” was “to go away.”

“I said to myself, ‘Oh, God, that is what the prophet meant,’ ” said Ms. Bakhtiar, speaking in the offices of Kazi Publications in Chicago, a mail-order house for Islamic books that is publishing her translation. “When the prophet had difficulty with his wives, what did he do? He didn’t beat anybody, so why would any Muslim do what the prophet did not?”

She thinks the “beat” translation contradicts another verse, which states that if a woman wants a divorce, she should not be mistreated. Given the option of staying in the marriage and being beaten, or divorcing, women would obviously leave, she said.

There have been similar interpretations, but none have been incorporated into a translation. Debates over translations of the Koran — considered God’s eternal words — revolve around religious tradition and Arabic grammar. Critics fault Ms. Bakhtiar on both scores.

Ms. Bakhtiar said she expected opposition, not least because she is not an Islamic scholar. Men in the Muslim world, she said, will also oppose the idea of an American, especially a woman, reinterpreting the prevailing translation.

“They feel the onslaught of the West against their religious values, and they fear losing their whole suit of armor,” she said. “But women need to know that there is an alternative.”

Religious scholars outline several main threads in the translation of “daraba.”

Conservative scholars suggest the verse has to be taken at face value, with important reservations.

They consider that the Koran holds that force is an acceptable last resort to preserve important institutions, including marriages and nations. Some scholars have accused some Muslims of trying to make the verse palatable to the West.

“I am not apologetic about why the Koran says this,” said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic scholar who teaches at George Washington University. The Bible, he noted, addresses stoning people to death.

Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian whose writings underpin the extremism of groups like Al Qaeda, published extensive commentaries about the Koran before he was hanged in 1966.

Islamic tradition states that Muhammad never hit his 11 wives, and Mr. Qutb considered a man striking his wife as the last measure to save a marriage. He cited the prophet’s horror at the practice by quoting one of his sayings: “Do not beat your wife like you beat your camel, for you will be flogging her early in the day and taking her to bed at night.”

The verse 4:34, with its three-step program, is often called a reform over the violent practices of seventh century Arabia, when the Koran was revealed. The verse was not a license for battery, scholars say, with other interpretations defining the heaviest instrument a man might employ as a twig commonly used as a toothbrush.

Sheik Ali Gomaa, the Islamic scholar who serves as Egypt’s grand mufti, said Koranic verses must be viewed through the prism of the era.

The advice “is always broad in order to be relevant to different cultures and in different times,” he said through a spokesman in an e-mail message. “In our modern context, hitting one’s wife is totally inappropriate as society deems it hateful and it will only serve to sow more discord.”

A caller on a television program in Egypt recently asked the mufti if he should stop sleeping with his wife if she was causing discord, the spokesman said. The mufti replied that the measures in the verse were meant to bring harmony, not to exact revenge.

More liberal commentators, particularly women, say the usual interpretation reflects the patriarchal practices of the Arabian peninsula.

This school holds that the sacred texts have become encrusted with medieval traditions that need to be scraped off like a layer of barnacles. Some Saudi women have been trying to do this by emphasizing the public role played by Aisha, one of the prophet’s wives, while the Asma Society gathered Muslim women from around the world in New York last fall to explore the establishment of a female council to interpret Islamic law.

Some analysts hold that the verse cannot be rendered meaningfully into English because it reflects social and legal practices of Muhammad’s time.

“The whole idea is not to punish her,” said Ingrid Mattson, an expert in early Islamic history at the Hartford Seminary and the first woman to be president of the Islamic Society of North America. “It is like a fear of sexual impropriety, that the husband takes these steps to try to bring their relationship to where it is supposed to be. I think it is a physical gesture of displeasure.”

Contrary, Sunni Sisters argued in their blog that Laleh is actually not the first

Why is it that when A’isha Bewley, who actually speaks Arabic, and is a known and respected translator of classical texts, published a translation of the Qur’an the NYT didn’t profile her? Heck, most Muslims didn’t even know she’d done this, and you have some people today talking about “the first translation by a woman” wrt Bakhtiar (and prior to Bewley’s, there was at least one other version that was done by an Egyptian woman). Is it because Bewley doesn’t fit the image of what Cheryl Benard and Rand told us “friendly” Muslims look like? Scoff all you like. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, but more and more coverage of Islam and Muslims seems to take a page from the infamous Rand report. And we go along with it.

Or is it because Bewley didn’t set out with the mindset that she was going to change what the Qur’an meant to English readers or not do it?

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating.”

What Bakhtiar is doing, then, is a grave, grave disservice to those people who pick up her version. She is doing what liberal Muslims accuse the ‘ulema of having done for 1400 years. It’s not a translation if she decides what the meaning is based on what she wants. It’s wishful thinking. Alhamdulillah, it doesn’t change the meaning of the Qur’an… but saying that English speakers are alienated by Arabic names, deciding yourself to do tafsir, even though you don’t really know Arabic and you admit to having no classical or scholarly training is changing how people who pick up your book will perceive the capital-T Truth, and this can lead one into spiritual territory where one would not want to be caught on the Day That Counts.

more arguments here

Well, Im not an expert in this, but I do agree with Sunni Sister bout the excessive features about this in the media, the fact that she is not the first women itself can actually prompt a debate. Thats not the issue.

But the issue here is, is it To beat or To go away? Yr decision I guess